The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Goyal & Ors. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors. consisting of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that there is no ambiguity in Section 245A of the Act that makes it necessary or apposite for the court to discard the literal interpretation of the language of Section 245A of the Act.
Facts:
The petitioners applied for assessments for 2012-13 to 2016-17 and the Commission allowed the applications to proceed. The Commission called for reports from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax regarding the validity of the applications, the tax paid by the petitioners, and their compliance with the law.
The Principal Commissioner objected to the applications on two grounds: the petitioners did not disclose all their expenses and there was no case for years other than 2014-15. The Commission did not accept the objection that the petitioners did not make full disclosure as they had disclosed their expenses on short-term capital losses. The Commission also believed the Income Tax Authorities could make further enquiries at a later stage.
Procedural History:
The Commission found that assessment proceedings for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were still ongoing because two years had not elapsed since the end of those years. However, for the years 2013-14, there was no case that met the definition in the relevant section of the Act, so the applications for that year were not valid.
Observations of the Court:
The question before the Bench was to figure out a suitable timeframe for applying to the Magistrate u/s 52A of the NDPS Act, as well as considering any consequences of delay.
It perused Section 52 of the NDPS Act which talks about the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as well as Clause 1.5 and 1.13 of Standing Order 1/88, regarding the place, time, mode and time limit for drawl and dispatch of samples to laboratory. It opined that a new notification was issued on December 23, 2022, which repealed Standing Orders 1/88 and 1/89 and clarified that samples should be drawn as per Section 52A (2) NDPS. However, this clarification could not be applied retrospectively. It noted that the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohanlal pointed out that even though there may be confusion caused by Standing Order 1/89 and Section 52A NDPS, it is important to remember that an application for taking samples and certification should not be delayed, u/s 52A NDPS Act. Reliance was also placed on Amani Fidel Chris v. Narcotics Control Bureau, where bail was granted due to non-compliance of procedure u/s 52A and Standing Order 1/89. Hence, it opined that Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not specify a time frame for applying to the magistrate to collect a sample. The only time frame mentioned is in Standing Order 1/88, which is related to sending the sample to the FSL. Guidelines prescribed in the Standing Orders cannot be flouted and their substantial compliance must be insisted upon as observed in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr.
It further opined that if the argument made by the respondent was accepted, that Section 52A of the NDPS Act doesn’t specify a timeframe for submitting the application, it would go against the intention of the legislature. It is a well-established legal principle that if a statute doesn’t indicate a specific time limit, it can be inferred from guidelines or should be within a reasonable timeframe.
It held that the legislature did not intend for authorities to take their time in submitting an application u/s 52A of the NDPS Act just because there is no time limit mentioned in the statute. Instead, the application should be submitted as soon as possible to prevent any tampering with the samples, as the evidence obtained from the seizure, quantity and quality of contraband is crucial in NDPS cases. The drawing of samples and certification in the presence of a magistrate is of utmost importance. Thus, Standing Order 1/88 and Section 52A of the NDPS Act must be read together to imply a reasonable time for submitting the application for drawing the sample and certification before the Magistrate.
Judgment:
The Bench stated that it was unreasonable to wait 51 days to file an application u/s 52A of the NDPS Act for drawing a sample. During this time, the contraband could be tampered with. Moreover, the Respondent did not provide any reasons for the delay. It held that the violation of Section 52A vitiated the sample collection procedure and the benefit of the same must go to the Applicant. The applicant was released on bail on certain terms and conditions.
Case: Sushil Kumar Goyal & Ors. vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 3928/2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan
For Petitioners: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr Vineet Garg and Mr Ashish Garg, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue with Mr Sanjeev Menon, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
