Point of Law: The term “institution” in context of any prosecution for specified offences is not defined in DTVSV Act as well as CrPC. It is a term of art, which has to be understood in context it is used. There is no room for dictionary or common parlance meaning. In context of institution of a case for prosecuting for offences, court has explained scope and contextual meaning of term “institution.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard and disposed at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.

Heard, Shri Nankani, Shri Anil Singh and considered the pleadings and written submissions.

2. Petitioner originally filed the petition challenging the communication dated 25th January 2021 withdrawing the earlier communication dated 21st October 2020 issued by the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai. By this communication dated 21st October 2020, petitioner was informed that they are eligible for resolution of tax disputes under the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (DTVSV Act). According to petitioner, relying on this communication petitioner had filed several applications for resolution of tax disputes. It is petitioner’s case that the stand of respondents is contrary to the plain language of Section 9(c) of the DTVSV Act.

3. Petitioner is desirous of availing the benefit of DTVSV Act with respect to certain pending income tax litigations before various appellate levels. By an application dated 15th April 2020, petitioner sought clarification from the revenue with respect to its eligibility under the DTVSV Act. A doubt regarding petitioner’s eligibility occurred in the mind of petitioner because of the following two proceedings:-

(A) FIR No.17/2014 dated 11th February 2014 under Section “Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) and 420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered by Anti Corruption Bureau of the National Capital Territory of Delhi dated 14th February 2014 where no charge sheet has been filed. The Accused persons include petitioner. (hereinafter referred to as the first proceeding)

(B) Special CBI Case No.91 of 2011 pending before Special Judge for Greater Mumbai wherein the Ld. Special Judge has taken cognizance for “offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 420 of IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act against the accused in the matter. The Accused named in the chargesheet include petitioner. (hereinafter referred to as the second proceeding)

4. Respondent no.1, by letter dated 21st October 2020, replied to petitioner’s application dated 15th April 2020 that petitioner was eligible / entitled to avail the benefit of DTVSV Act in accordance with law. Following the said communication, petitioner filed 27 applications for resolution of disputes under the DTVSV Act as mentioned in paragraph 4(M) of the Petition. In the petition that was lodged on 29th January 2021 it is also stated that petitioner was proposing to file further applications before the last date of filing of the application, i.e., 31st January 2021 and petitioner was ready and willing to pay the amounts as per the orders passed under the DTVSV Act.

Thereafter, petitioner received a letter dated 25th January 2021 from respondent no.1, whereby respondent no.1 conveyed to petitioner that in view of the provisions of Section 9(c) of the DTVSV Act, since the prosecution was instituted against petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act), the letter dated 21st October 2020 issued to petitioner was contrary to the said provisions and withdrew the letter dated 21st October 2020.

5. Aggrieved by the said withdrawal, petitioner filed this petition impugning the letter dated 25th January 2021. Subsequently petitioner has, upon leave being granted amended the petition when petitioner’s 27 applications / declarations filed under the DTVSV Act were rejected. Petitioner has also impugned the rejection of petitioner’s applications under the DTVSV Act and has also sought declaration to hold and declare that petitioner is not rendered ineligible under the DTVSV Act on the ground stated in the letter dated 25th January 2021, i.e., prosecution was instituted against petitioner under PC Act.

6. Admittedly, the first and second proceedings are the hurdles for petitioner. These two proceedings are still pending. In any event, they were pending on