HC Verdict tomorrow on petitions by Jaya, Sasikala

Madras High Court will pronounce tomorrow its verdict on petitions filed by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and her aide Sasikala,seeking to quash a portion of a lower court's order, directing them to appear before it for questioning and for framing Charges in the Income Tax returns case.

On September 18 the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate M R Dakshinamurthy had directed them to appear before it 'without fail' on Oct 1.

Defence counsel for Jayalalithaa submitted before Justice K B K Vasuki that the main object of the amended guidelines of the Central Board of Direct Taxes in allowing the assesses to file compounding application before the department is not to put them in hardship and to avoid treating them as criminal.

They also submitted that the compounding application to the IT department on June 25 2014 has an outer time limit up to December 24, a time of 180 days from the date of application to decide on the same.

They contended that the new guidelines says counsel for IT Department has to file an application before the trial Court, seeking adjournment of proceedings immediately after the application for compounding is made before the Central Board of Direct Taxes by the assessee. Till a decision is arrived at, criminal proceedings have to be kept in abeyance.

Also the guidelines have come to effect only after the Supreme Court order fixing the time limit to conclude the trial in this case and hence there is change of circumstances in the case, defence counsel submitted.

Counsel for Sasikala argued that Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act permits assesses to file applications for compounding either before or after the institution of criminal proceedings. Hence it is binding on the authorities that pending compounding application, no proceedings be continued.

K Ramasamy, IT department counsel, opposed the arguments, saying departmental proceedings are not bound by the criminal court and these and criminal proceedings are different.

He also said that the petitioners had sought several adjournments in the case right from the beginning and they intended to 'sidetrack' the proceedings.

"This is not an ordinary case and it is monitored by the Supreme Court, which fixed a time frame for the completion of trial and the petitioners did not respect the highest legal Forum in the country," he said.

When Justice Vasuki sought to know from counsel for IT department what was the difficulty in disposing of the compounding application, he replied it would take time as a committee has to be formed to deal with the application and decide on that.

He contended that the petitioners cannot stall the criminal proceedings in the guise of compounding application and let it go on and compounding proceedings go on parallel.

If any relaxation is needed the petitioners could approach the Supreme Court which fixed the time frame for completion of trail, he said and questioned why they did not do so
Counsel for IT department said since this particular case is monitored by SC, even this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition

He also commented on the adjournment given by the trial court more than 100 times in the case, saying "The trial court is acting as an advocate of the other side.”
Irked by his comment, the Judge told him to mind his words and said the orders on the petitions would be announced tomorrow.

The Income Tax department had launched criminal proceedings against Jayalalithaa and Sasikala for allegedly not filing returns in their individual capacity for the assessment year 1993-94.

Complaints were also filed by the IT department against Sasi Enterprises represented by its partners, Jayalalithaa and Sasikala for allegedly failing to file returns for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93.

Discharge petitions filed by the accused were later dismissed by the Madras High Court. Jayalalithaa and Sasikala preferred appeals before the Supreme Court.

Dismissing their appeals on January 30, the Apex Court had directed the lower court to complete the trial in four months.