By TIOL News Service

CHANDIGARH, FEB 19, 2019: PETITIONER Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had filed a complaint against respondents and after holding trial, the same was dismissed discharging all the accused-respondents.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner had approached the lower Revisional Court by filing revision along with an application for condonation of delay of 110 days, on the ground that there was a confusion as to before whom the revision had to be filed.

It was submitted that the local empanelled Advocate had advised them to file revision before the High Court. However, the case file was returned by the Advocate empanelled to appear before the High Court and it was advised that a revision be filed before the lower Revisional Court and in this process the delay.

As the revision application was dismissed, the Assistant Commissioner filed a petitionu/s 482 of the CrPC before the High Court.

The petitioner narrated the 'reasons for the delay' and submitted that the lower Revisional Court had failed to appreciate the cause of delay.

The respondents submitted that the plea taken by the petitioner was totally misconceived; that the petitioner has tried his level best to mis-guide the High Court as well as the lower Revisional Court by pleading wrong facts and thus, is liable for criminal action; that it is a self-created excuse of the petitioner to hide his mistake of non-filing of revision within the period of limitation; that as on date, there is no loss to the State Exchequer, inasmuch as demand of the petitioner had been dropped by the CESTAT vide order dated 30.03.2015. Inasmuch as the instant petition was liable to be dismissed, the respondent pleaded.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court observed that the petition was completely devoid of any merit because -

+ The demand raised by the petitioner had already been dropped/cancelled by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.03.2015. Therefore, the petitioner ought not to have filed the instant petition. Despite knowledge of above said fact, filing of instant petition by the petitioner, his mala fide action with some ulterior motive and extraneous consideration, best known to him, amounts to grave harassment to the innocent tax payers.

+ Filing of the petition amounts to gross abuse of the process of law inasmuch as after cancellation of demand raised by him from the respondent, the petition was not maintainable.

+ There is no legal advice of any of the advocates on the record advising the petitioner to file revision before this Court against impugned order discharging the respondents, while dismissing the complaint.

+ The story put forth by the petitioner seems to be completely false and concocted one just to hide his negligence of not filing revision within the period of limitation.

+ All above acts of the petitioner being not bona fide are liable to be condemned. He is warned to be careful in future with advice not to harass genuine tax payers, taking advantage of his official position.

+ This Court is flooded with such type of frivolous litigations. Now, it is the need of hour that the official machinery should sensitise itself and may think thousand times before adopting any legal course against any citizen of this country, which un-necessarily made him to suffer for huge expenses towards legal fee and other miscellaneous expenses .

The Petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.2,00,000/- to be recovered from the erring officer from his own pocket.

The story does not end here. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court has stayed the order of the High Court insofar as imposition of costs is concerned.

(See 2019-TIOL-383-HC-P&H-CX & 2019-TIOL-66-SC-CX)