Latest news with #CodeofCivilProcedure
Business Recorder
25-06-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
FBR redrafts Sec 37A: Amended Finance Bill sets conditions for tax fraud arrests
ISLAMABAD: The amended Finance Bill (2025-26) has bound Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) to constitute a three-member committee to authorise the Commissioner to issue warrant of arrest against a person involved in tax fraud in cases where tax loss exceeds Rs 50 million. Tax fraud cases involving an amount below Rs 50 million would not be liable to arrest through high-powered FBR committee in this particular situation under section 37A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The said arrest would be made in a situation where the accused is intentionally or wilfully not joining the investigation after three notices; accused attempting to abscond or there are sufficient grounds that the accused would temper with the evidence. Arrests for tax fraud: major changes made in sales tax law thru Finance Bill According to the amended Finance Bill (2025-26), the FBR has redrafted section (37A) Power to inquire and investigate offences warranting prosecution under Sales Tax Act and Arrest of a person. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11E of this Act, an officer of Inland Revenue not below the rank of assistant commissioner or any other officer authorised by the Board in this behalf on the basis of material evidence pointing to the commission of tax fraud or an offence warranting prosecution under this act may initiate an inquiry upon approval by the Commissioner. (2) For the purpose of an inquiry under this Act, the officer of Inland revenue shall have the powers of a civil court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908(Act No. V of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining on oath; and (b) Requiring the discovery and production of documents and receiving evidence on affidavits. (3) The inquiry officer shall complete the inquiry while exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 37, 38, 38A, 38B, 40 or any other section of the Act, wherever required within six months. (4) During inquiry proceedings, the inquiry officer shall give an opportunity of being heard to the person whose actions alleged to have caused tax fraud warranting prosecution under this Act, confronting the person the details of tax fraud committed or caused to be committed by such person for explanation. (5) The inquiry officer shall submit inquiry report along with reasons to be recorded including the loss of tax calculated as a result of such inquiry to the Commissioner to obtain prior approval for investigation or the closure of inquiry without any further investigation. (6) The Commissioner, on the basis of inquiry report under sub-section (5) and after recording reasons in writing, shall either- (i) Approve initiation of investigation, or (ii) require the Officer of Inland Revenue to submit such further information or documents as he may direct for his decision; or (iii) close the inquiry by rejecting the report or accepting the report, as the case may be. Provided that a copy of the report shall be furnished to the person alleged to have committed the tax fraud. (7) After approval of investigation under sub-section (6), the inquiry officer shall complete investigation within three months and prepare investigation report for submission before the competent court. (8) The Board through a three member committee notified by the Chairman may authorize the Commissioner to issue warrant of arrest for a person in a case of a fraud which falls within the ambit of sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of clause (37) of section 2 and the tax loss due to fraud exceeds the amount of rupees fifty million during the course of investigation if:- (i) The accused is intentionally or wilfully not joining the investigation after three notices; (ii) The accused attempting to abscond; (iii) There are sufficient grounds that the accused would temper with the evidence. (9) The officer of inland revenue may arrest a person alleged to have committed a tax fraud after obtaining an arrest warrant from the Special Judge in a case of a fraud falling within the ambit of the sub clauses of clause (37) of section 2 other than those mentioned in subsection (8) of this section during the course of investigation if: (i) The accused is intentionally or wilfully not joining the investigation after three notices; (ii) The accused attempting to abscond; (iii) There are sufficient grounds that the accused would temper with the evidence. (10) Where the person suspected of tax fraud or any offence warranting prosecution under this Act is a company, every director or officer of that company whom the authorised officer has reason to believe is personally responsible for actions of the company contributing the tax fraud or any offence warranting prosecution under this Act shall be liable to arrest; provided that any arrest under this sub-section shall not absolve the company from the liabilities of payment of tax, default surcharge and penalty imposed under this Act. (11) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person has committed a tax fraud or any offence warranting prosecution under this Act, the Commissioner may, either before or after the inquiry or investigation, compound the offence if such person pays the amount of tax evaded or sought to be evaded as determined in the inquiry or the investigation along with default surcharge and penalty as provided under this Act. (12) Any person accused of an offence who is arrested under this Act shall at the time of arrest be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing on the basis of which he has been arrested. (13) All arrests made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), the revised procedure of arrest added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hans India
14-06-2025
- Hans India
Elderly parents can claim maintenance from kids
Chittoor: Senior Civil Judge and Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), MS Bharathi noted that elderly parents who are neglected by their sons or daughters are legally entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). She held an awareness programme at an old age home in Tapovanam in Chittoor on Friday, which was organised as per the directives of the Supreme Court and the State Legal Services Authority. During the event, Judge Bharathi interacted with the elderly residents, inquiring about their health, the medical services being provided, pension disbursement, and any other issues they may be facing. She encouraged them to voice their concerns, assuring that legal help is available free of cost through the DLSA. Speaking at the event, she highlighted that in many cases, elderly parents transfer property to their children through gift deeds, expecting care and support in return. However, when the children fail to fulfill their responsibilities, the parents have the right to approach the court under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure to revoke such deeds. Judge Bharathi reiterated the commitment of the District Legal Services Authority to provide free legal services to the elderly in such matters. She also stressed the importance of awareness about the constitutional rights and protective laws available to senior citizens. Former president of the Retired Employees Welfare Association Kesavulu, Murali, staff nurse Aruna from the Disabled Welfare Hostel, and several elderly residents of the ashram participated in the programme.
News18
09-06-2025
- Politics
- News18
Bengaluru Stampede: Retired HC Judge John Michael D'Cunha Leading Probe Had Convicted Jayalalithaa
Last Updated: From the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case to FIR against Yediyurappa, D'Cunha has been involved in several high-profile cases The Karnataka government has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under retired High Court judge John Michael D'Cunha to inquire into the June 4 stampede at the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru that killed 11 people. From the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case to FIR against Yediyurappa, D'Cunha has been involved in several high-profile cases. He is currently heading inquiries into the pandemic medical procurement scam and oxygen-related deaths at Chamarajanagar hospital in Karnataka. procedural lapses and submit its report in 30 days. '…the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under the chairmanship of John Michael Cunha, retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to conduct an inquiry into the incident," the official notification dated June 5 said. 'The inquiry commission shall have all the powers to conduct inquiries under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and Code of Civil Procedure, and the government expects the investigation to be completed and a report submitted within one month," it said. The terms of reference in the notification include, to find — whether the necessary permissions, rules and procedures were followed while organising the RCB team's victory felicitation ceremony at Chinnaswamy Stadium; the causes/causers of the rush and stampede that took place; the causes/causers of the incident that led to the death of 11 people and injury to more than 50 people based on the chain of events and circumstances. Also, to inquire into the measures taken as a precaution regarding the incident and the omissions/deficiencies that may have occurred in this regard and to identify those responsible for this incident; and to inquire regarding other relevant aspects related to this incident. This inquiry commission is separate from the magisterial inquiry that has been ordered, and shall conduct a parallel and comprehensive inquiry, it clarified. The Chairman of the inquiry commission, if necessary, may take steps to obtain the services of one retired IPS officer and one retired IAS officer for technical and legal assistance. The salary/allowance expenses of the concerned officers shall be borne by the government. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, shall provide the necessary staff, materials, vehicles and office and furniture/telephone etc required for the commission of inquiry. WHO IS RETIRED HC JUDGE D'CUNHA? D'Cunha, who studied at SDM Law College in Mangalore, started his law practice in 1985, and formed Manu Associates with fellow advocates Amruth Kini, M P Noronha and Ullal S K. The name 'Manu' was formed from the first letter of each partner's name: 'M' for Michael, 'A' from Amruth, 'N' from Noronha and 'U' from Ullal. In 1999, he left Mangalore to join the Karnataka High Court. In 2002 D'Cunha joined the judiciary as a District Judge. He has served in the courts of Bangalore, Bellary, and Dharwad. He also served as secretary to the Chief Justice and Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court. D'Cunha was appointed a judge in the Karnataka High Court in 2016 and retired on April 6, 2021. HIGH-PROFILE JUDGMENTS On 31 March 2021, a bench of Justice D'Cunha refused to quash the FIR against BS Yediyurappa in a case nicknamed Operation Kamala case. D'Cunha was appointed by the Supreme Court of India in October 2013 as the fifth judge to investigate the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa, replacing judge MS Balakrishna. On September 27, 2014, D'Cunha convicted Jayalalithaa, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. She was sentenced to a prison term of four years and fined Rs 100 crore. Jayalalithaa was later acquitted by the High Court of Karnataka on May 11, 2015, claiming the trial court order by D'Cunha was not sustainable. However, the Supreme Court of India reconfirmed D'Cunha's order on February 14, 2017. With PTI Inputs tags : bengaluru J Jayalalithaa news18 specials Location : Bengaluru, India, India First Published: June 09, 2025, 14:48 IST News cities Bengaluru Stampede: Retired HC Judge John Michael D'Cunha Leading Probe Had Convicted Jayalalithaa
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Bengaluru stampede: Retired HC judge to head probe, fix responsibility
The one-man inquiry commission constituted by the Karnataka government under retired High Court judge John Michael Cunha to inquire into the June 4 stampede that killed 11 people, has been asked to identify the persons responsible for the omissions or deficiencies that led to this incident. As per the terms of reference to the commission from the government, it has also suggested precautionary measures that can be taken to prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future, among others. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on June 5 announced that a one-man commission would be formed under Cunha to look into the procedural lapses in the issue, and the commission has been asked to give the report in 30 days. The stampede occurred on June 4 evening in front of the Chinnaswamy stadium here, where a large number of people thronged to participate in the RCB team's IPL victory celebrations. Eleven people died and 56 were injured in the incident. "...the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under the chairmanship of John Michael Cunha, retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to conduct an inquiry into the incident," the official notification dated June 5 said. "The inquiry commission shall have all the powers to conduct inquiries under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and Code of Civil Procedure, and the government expects the investigation to be completed and a report submitted within one month," it said. The terms of reference in the notification include, to find -- whether the necessary permissions, rules and procedures were followed while organising the RCB team's victory felicitation ceremony at Chinnaswamy Stadium; the causes/causers of the rush and stampede that took place; the causes/causers of the incident that led to the death of 11 people and injury to more than 50 people based on the chain of events and circumstances. Also, to inquire into the measures taken as a precaution regarding the incident and the omissions/deficiencies that may have occurred in this regard and to identify those responsible for this incident; and to inquire regarding other relevant aspects related to this incident. As per the notification, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police - Bengaluru, and Deputy Commissioner - Bengaluru Urban district shall provide all the files/documents/etc that the Commission may require from time to time for the inquiry and shall be present during the inquiry and fully cooperate with the Commission. This inquiry commission is separate from the magisterial inquiry that has been ordered, and shall conduct a parallel and comprehensive inquiry, it clarified. The Chairman of the inquiry commission, if necessary, may take steps to obtain the services of one retired IPS officer and one retired IAS officer for technical and legal assistance. The salary/allowance expenses of the concerned officers shall be borne by the government. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, shall provide the necessary staff, materials, vehicles and office and furniture/telephone etc required for the commission of inquiry.
Time of India
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Bengaluru stampede: One-man inquiry panel under retired HC judge to find persons responsible
A one-man inquiry commission, led by retired Justice John Michael Cunha, has been formed by the Karnataka government to investigate the stampede at the RCB victory celebration that resulted in 11 deaths. The commission will identify those responsible for any procedural lapses and suggest preventative measures. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The one-man inquiry commission constituted by the Karnataka government under retired High Court judge John Michael Cunha to inquire into the June 4 stampede that killed 11 people, has been asked to identify the persons responsible for the omissions or deficiencies that led to this per the terms of reference to the commission from the government, it has also suggested precautionary measures that can be taken to prevent recurrence of such incidents in the future, among Minister Siddaramaiah on June 5 announced that a one-man commission would be formed under Cunha to look into the procedural lapses in the issue, and the commission has been asked to give the report in 30 stampede occurred on June 4 evening in front of the Chinnaswamy stadium here, where a large number of people thronged to participate in the RCB team's IPL victory celebrations. Eleven people died and 56 were injured in the incident."...the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under the chairmanship of John Michael Cunha, retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to conduct an inquiry into the incident," the official notification dated June 5 said."The inquiry commission shall have all the powers to conduct inquiries under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and Code of Civil Procedure, and the government expects the investigation to be completed and a report submitted within one month," it terms of reference in the notification include, to find -- whether the necessary permissions, rules and procedures were followed while organising the RCB team's victory felicitation ceremony at Chinnaswamy Stadium; the causes/causers of the rush and stampede that took place; the causes/causers of the incident that led to the death of 11 people and injury to more than 50 people based on the chain of events and to inquire into the measures taken as a precaution regarding the incident and the omissions/deficiencies that may have occurred in this regard and to identify those responsible for this incident; and to inquire regarding other relevant aspects related to this per the notification, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Commissioner of Police - Bengaluru, and Deputy Commissioner - Bengaluru Urban district shall provide all the files/documents/etc that the Commission may require from time to time for the inquiry and shall be present during the inquiry and fully cooperate with the inquiry commission is separate from the magisterial inquiry that has been ordered, and shall conduct a parallel and comprehensive inquiry, it Chairman of the inquiry commission, if necessary, may take steps to obtain the services of one retired IPS officer and one retired IAS officer for technical and legal assistance. The salary/allowance expenses of the concerned officers shall be borne by the government. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, shall provide the necessary staff, materials, vehicles and office and furniture/telephone etc required for the commission of inquiry. PTI
