Bombay High Court: Reliance Industries conspired to Bind Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, casting question on cash sought to be offered to Income Tax

Bombay High Court: Reliance Industries conspired to Bind Offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, casting question on cash sought to be offered to Income Tax

In an order issued by the Bombay High Court, the court stated that Reliance Industries conspired to violate the Prevention of Corruption Act, casting question on the funds sought to be provided to Income Tax.

Initially, the Petitioner filed a petition for review challenging the communication issued by the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, on the 25th January 2021 withdrawing the previous communication from 21st October 2020. Specifically, the petitioner was informed in this email on 21st October 2020 that they are eligible to resolve tax disputes according to the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020.

This communication is said to have prompted the petitioner to file several applications to resolve tax controversies based on this communication. In the present case, the petitioner argues that the standing of respondents is contrary to the plain language of Section 9(c) of the DTVSV Act.

This petitioner wishes to take advantage of DTVSV Act in regards to certain awaiting appeals of income tax litigation before several appellate levels. Petitioner requested clarification from the DTVSV about its eligibility under the DTVSV Act through an application on 15th April 2020.

In accordance to the charge sheet, there was a wrongful loss of Rs. 147.71 crore for National Insurance Company Limited and Reliance Industries Limited has an unfair gain corresponding to this amount. In addition, claims are outstanding amounting to 98.28 crores under the two policies.

Ex facie, the money sought to be offered to the tax authority bears a shadow of illegality since the petitioner is charged with conspiring to commit acts of corruption punishable under the PC Act. In this case, the petitioner does not qualify under the DTVSV Act.

As both the cases had been duly filed with the police, a division bench of Justice Amit B. Borkar and Justice K.R. Shriram found that these are cases where prosecution has been instituted. As in each case, the petitioner is charged with conspiring to commit offenses under the PC Act, which casts doubt on the tax funds to be offered.