Reliance Industries Limited is charged for committing offence under the PC Act: Bombay HC

Issue

Petition filed to challenge the communication dated 25th January 2021 withdrawing the earlier communication dated 21st October 2020 issued by the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax by which 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).  

Facts  

• Petitioner desired to avail 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. 
• Two criminal cases were already filed against the Petitioner. 
• Respondent vide letter dated 21st October 2020, replied to petitioner’s application declaring him to be eligible to avail the benefit of DTVSV Act in accordance with law. 
• Thereafter, petitioner filed 27 applications for resolution of disputes under the DTVSV Act.  
• On 25th January 2021, petitioner received a letter from respondent, whereby respondent 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. 
• Aggrieved by the said withdrawal, petitioner filed this petition impugning the letter dated 25th January 2021. 

Findings  

The DTVSV Act has been formulated for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The DTVSV Act allows the eligible assessees to settle pending disputes on payment of the specified amount based on the percentage of the disputed tax. The objective of the DTVSV Act is to inter alia reduce pending income tax litigation, generate timely revenue for the Government and benefit taxpayers by providing them peace of mind, certainty and savings on account of time and resources that would otherwise be spent on the long-drawn and vexatious litigation process. 

It would be evident that petitioner is charged with having conspired, inter alia, to commit acts of corruption which are punishable under the PC Act and hence, ex facie, there is a shadow of illegality on the money sought to be offered to tax. Thus, petitioner is not eligible under the DTVSV Act. 

Judgement  

This Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition as both the proceedings are cases where prosecution was instituted since in both cases an FIR had been duly lodged. Both cases charge petitioner as having conspired to commit offences under the PC Act, thus casting a shadow on the monies sought to be offered to tax. 

To Read Judgement Download PDF Given Below: