Bombay HC leaves non-democratic warrant against Arjun Rampal in 2019, in case of tax evasion: Report |

admin9 hours ago

0 3 3 minutes read

Arjun Rampal got relief from the Bombay High Court, which overturned a non-bailable warrant issued in the 2019 tax evasion case. The court criticized the order of the magistrate, which lacks proper arguments, especially in view of the alleged crime. Rampal’s lawyer claims that the amount was paid to the completion, dismissing the allegations of tax evasion.

Arjun Rampal is relieved from the Bombay High Court, which abolished a non-bailable warrant issued against him in the 2019 tax evasion case. The court slammed the local magistrate’s order as “mechanical and cryptic”, in which holiday judge Justice Advaita Sethna noted on 16 May that it was “contrary to law” and was issued without proper consideration.NBW challenged procedural lapsAccording to a report published in NEWS18, Rampal challenged the April 9 order of the magistrate, which issued a non-bailable warrant against him in a case filed by the Income Tax Department under Section 276C (2) of the Income Tax Act-a provision that is related to wilful efforts to avoid tax payments, punishment, or interest.In his petition, Rampal argued that his advocate had requested exemption from appearance, which the magistrate had refused to release the NBW.HC points to a bail nature of crimeThe Bombay High Court noticed that the alleged crime against Arjun Rampal bailable and sentenced to three years of maximum sentence, making a non-jumbleable warrant inappropriate. Justice Advaita Sethna criticized the magistrate’s order as “mechanical” and “cryptic”, given that it lacked any argument or application of mind. The court further stated that an NBW was issued in a bailable offense, especially when Rampal’s lawyers were present in the court, was prejudiced for the actor.Arjun Rampal has also challenged the notice of the magistrate issued in December 2019 in connection with the case. The Bombay High Court has set the next hearing for 16 June.Rampal’s lawyer says that no theft, bus payment delayedRampal’s lawyer, Swapnil Ambur argued that the amount was paid for the financial year 2016-17, although the delay was delayed, and maintained that there was no tax evasion by the department. He further said that issuing a non-bailable warrant went against the decisions of the Supreme Court, which discourages similar action in similar cases.