RAJAKAMAL ENTERPRISES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent has initiated an enquiry against the petitioners regarding the service tax filed by them for the assessment year 2011-2012 to 2015-2016. In this regard, summons have been issued to the petitioners to appear for enquiry on the ground that inspite of issuance of such summons, the petitioners did not appear for necessary enquiry. A private complaint came to be filed before the Principal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, which culminated in C.C.No.428/2016 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 174 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they have been attending the Office of the respondent - Authority pursuant to the summons issued and co-operating with the enquiry. But a false case has been filed against them. It is further contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been too harsh on the petitioners and has exceeded his jurisdiction and when the bail was granted the following conditions were prescribed, which are illegal. The operative portion of the bail order reads as under:-

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioners have not appeared before them pursuant to the summons, because of which they were constrained to file a private complaint before the Magistrate and there is no error committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and prays for dismissal of the petition.