The High Court on Monday stayed all proceedings against Kingfisher Airlines (KFA) and its Chairman Vijay Mallya initiated by the special court for economic offences for not remitting to government the tax deducted at source (TDS) from salaries of employees of the now-defunct airlines.

Justice K N Keshavanarayana stayed the proceedings for eight weeks, on a petition by Mallya and KFA. The petitioners had submitted that the demand order on TDS had been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT),  but the proceedings were still pending against them. Therefore, prosecution could not be initiated against them at this juncture, they argued. Justice Keshavanarayana ordered that a notice be issued to the IT Department.

Mallya and KFA had moved the High Court against the criminal proceedings. The special court had issued summons to Mallya for not remitting the TDS.

Govt vs KPSC

The High Court on Monday remarked it was unfortunate the State government was complaining against the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC).

Hearing a petition by Khaleel Ahmed and others, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice B V Nagarathna directed the KPSC to furnish within a week the list of candidates who benefited from irregularities in recruitment of gazetted probationers in 1998, 1999 and 2004.

The government submitted before the court that it had not received any information although the KPSC stated it would co-operate in the investigation. The KPSC, however, countered the government, saying it had submitted all information sought.

At this juncture, the bench expressed dissatisfaction and remarked, “It is unfortunate the government has to make a complaint against the KPSC. Either the advocate general is making a wrong submission or both of you are in collusion on this matter.”

The court rapped the KPSC on whether it needed a separate order to provide the information to the government. “This information can be provided, but you are just complicating it unnecessarily because of your guilt feelings.”

When the KPSC said it needed time to provide statistics after verification and analysis of the facts, the court said, “This is not your job to be judgmental regarding the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). What we want is you should provide information on the number of candidates benefited. You are giving an impression that you are shielding some persons involved (in the scam). Have you read our order dated August 12, 2013?”

The bench directed the KPSC to submit a copy of the information to the court also.