: 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.
