In a major relief to the former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, and her close aide N. Sasikala, the Income Tax cases against them for non-filing of returns, pending for the past 18 years, have been withdrawn. have been withdrawn. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, R. Dakshinamoorthy, dismissed the cases as withdrawn after the IT department accepted their compounding applications.
After passing an order accepting the compounding fee and other charges totalling nearly Rs. 2 crore paid by the accused, the Income Tax Department filed a petition before a City Magistrate court, withdrawing the criminal proceedings. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, R. Dakshinamoorthy, dismissed the cases as withdrawn.
While two cases related to the non-filing of personal income tax returns against Jayalalitha and Sasikala for the assessment year 1993-1994, the other two were for their non-filing of returns as partners of Sasi Enterprises for 1991-92 and 1992-1993.
Even as the cases were listed for hearing in June last year, the accused expressed their willingness to seek compounding of the offences and filed compounding applications.
The Regional Compounding Committee (RCC), at its meeting held on November 26, 2014 decided to accept the request from the accused to pay the charges. A total of Rs.1,99,93,061 was remitted to the department in compounding fee on November 27. last year.
When the matter came up before the Additional CMM, , Economic Offences-I, counsel J. Karuppiah and D. Vairamurthy filed a memo on behalf of the accused, stating that the RCC accepted the compounding of the offences. Following this, the Senior Special Public Prosecutor for Income Tax, K. Ramasamy, filed petitions seeking withdrawal of the prosecution proceedings. against the accused.
The court said that since the offence under Section 276 (CC) of the Income Tax Act had been compounded by the competent authority, it was allowing the petitions. It also recorded the order passed by the department in the compounding applications.
The court ordered that the cases against the two were dismissed as withdrawn and discharged the accused.
Even in December last year referring to the reports in dailies that ‘the 18-year-old Income Tax case against former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha and her confidante N Sasikalaa is coming to a close with the IT department accepting their offer for an out of the court settlement’, DMK President Kalaignar had said that doubt has arisen in the minds of all whether her request not accepted when Vajpayee was the Prime Minister had now been accepted when Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister.
The Income Tax department had filed a criminal case against erstwhile Sasi Enterprises and its partners — Jayalalitha and Sasikala Natarajan — for their failure to file returns for two consecutive years (1991-92 and 1992-93).
The case picked up momentum after the Supreme Court fixed a six-month time frame for the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (economic offences) in Chennai to complete the trial. On July 30, both the accused filed compounding petition before the IT department to end the litigation out of court. On November 26, the IT department decided to accept the petition. The next day, Sasi Enterprises paid Rs 75,33,330 (1991-1992) and Rs 65,67,872 (1992-1993), the IT department informed the court on Dec 1. Sasikala had to pay Rs 28,07,972 and Jayalalitha Rs 30,83,887.
The trial court had dismissed their discharge pleas and the Madras High Court had upheld the same in 2006. Subsequently, special leave petitions filed by them in the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict were also rejected on January 30 and the trial court was directed to complete the trial in four months which was later extended by another three months.
During the course of the case during the last 18 years, the strictures issued by courts against their maneouvres for delaying the case including the one passed by the Supreme Court by the bench of Justices P.N.Agarwal and A.K.Mathur on 24.2.2006, “You (Jayalalitha) are making a mockery of the Judicial Process. How long you can drag the proceedings? You must set an example to others by presenting yourself in the court for questioning under section 313 cr. P.C. What counter affidavit you can file in this matter? We want to pass an order today itself directing your client to be present in the Court”.
In report in the daily ‘Stateman’ on 15.7.1998 it was stated that ‘Following the temporary truce with the Centre by Jayalalitha, Vajpayee government has undertaken ways and means to acquit her in the cases against her including the IT case. IT Commissioner S.C.Jadhav, who was looking after her cases, was transferred to a coveted post in Mumbai and in his place one K.Gopalan was posted. Honest officer P.K.Sridharan was transferred and in his place one N.P.Tripathi was posted. IT officials alleged that by such transfers Jayalalitha, Sasikala and her relatives could get temporary relief. By assuaging Jayalalitha, the BJP regime got the support it required. In return they have stopped their demand for the dismissal of the DMK government in Tamil Nadu for the time being”.
Further, the then Union Finance Minister when the ADMK was in alliance with the BJP and one of the senior leaders of BJP Yashwant Sinha in his book “Confessions of a Swadeshi Reformer’ on page 226 stated: “In Chennai, after completing my programme in the forenoon, I quietly left for Jayalalitha’s residence. Fortunately there were no photographers waiting there. I was rushed into the living room, where she waited for me. We chatted for a while, and then went for lunch. There were only three of us for lunch - Jayalalitha, Dilip Roy and myself. The lunch was delicious, served by liveried bearers wearing white gloves; everything was done in great style. As I was about to leave, Jayalalitha handed me an envelope. Later when I opened it, I found it was a note about her income tax cases. I met the Prime Minister a few days later and reported the details of my meeting with Jayalalitha in Chennai but forgot to mention the envelope. After I had finished my narration, Vajpayee innocently asked me about the envelope she had given to me and its contents. I was taken aback. Obviously, the Prime Minister of India gets to know everything, if he so wishes”
This was an incident, that too relating to the IT case that happened in 1998 when the ADMK was a constituent of the BJP alliance, when she invited the Union Finance Minister for a lunch and sent a letter of recommendation through him.
What was the development now? Jayalalitha, who did not go to the airport to receive former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his visit to Tamil Nadu earlier, now went to the airport, received the present Prime Minister Narendra Modi and saw him off and had closeted meeting for 15 minutes with him. It was only after that that she has informed in the Egmore court that she has filed an application to the IT department for compounding of the case which was under their consideration. The counsel for IT department also did not object to it.
Now with the withdrawal of the cases against her, some questions have arisen for us and the people about this case are:
Who is responsible for the spending of so much time for this case by various courts, judges, government, lawyers, and court staff? Is the punishment for such wastage of time just penalty? If people with money pay penalty, will their offences be forgotten? If this amount paid with penalty was paid 17 years back, will not the toil of so many not wasted? What happened to the strictures passed by judges of the Supreme Court? What was the time spent by journalists for this case? If many people think that efforts similar to the one made in 1998 during Vajpayee rule were made now, will it be wrong? Instead of filing petitions after petitions in various courts, could not they agree to remit penalty to the IT department?
What happened to the letters written by DMDK leader to the president and Prime Minister asking could an ordinary citizen acted like Jayalalitha not appearing in the court despite orders by the judges and whether the IT department could accept her demand made after so many years? At least after the Supreme Court refused to discharge them from the case in 2006 could not Jayalalitha petition for the compromise and compounding? Was such a plea not submitted because there was no government at the Centre to listen to her demand?
If Jayalalitha side had remitted the penalty, does it not mean that they had committed an offence? If somebody else prolong the litigation for 17 years and finally offer to pay penalty when the verdict is to be delivered and there is no escape, will the IT department accept it?
According to legal circles, if Jayalalitha had not gone in for compromise and if the tax default was more than Rs. One lakh, the conviction would be for a minimum six months and maximum 7 years and also disqualification as MLA. Only to escape from such conviction and sentence that Jayalalitha is said to have sought the assistance of somebody known to her and arrived at compromise with IT department. Somehow, doubt has arisen in the minds of all whether the plea not accepted when Vajpayee was the Prime Minister has been accepted now when Modi is the Prime Minister.
Will such a remedy be available to all citizens of the nation, who after being recalcitrant for nearly 18 years, at last agree to pay penalty and escape conviction and sentence for an obvious offence? Or is it ‘selective’ justice for Jayalalitha? The law abiding people of the county want to know! r
No comments:
Post a Comment