Bombay High Court Quashes Non-Bailable Warrant for Bailable Offence under Income Tax Act
The Bombay High Court has quashed a non-bailable warrant issued against a petitioner for an offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, which is bailable in nature. The court ruled that the order was passed without application of mind and was contrary to the law.
Bombay High CourtIncome Tax ActNonbailable WarrantBailable OffenceLegal RulingReal Estate MumbaiAug 21, 2025
Arjun Amarjeet Rampal, the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai.
By this order, the Magistrate had issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner in connection with Case No. 466/SW/2019 for an alleged offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the offence under Section 276C(2) is bailable in nature, and the maximum punishment prescribed is only three years. They pointed out that on the same date, the petitioner’s advocate had filed a vakalatnama and an application seeking exemption from personal appearance.
However, the Magistrate rejected the exemption on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with bail conditions and went on to issue a non-bailable warrant.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order was passed without recording any reasons and that the presence of the advocate on record was overlooked. They submitted that this had caused undue prejudice in a case where such a harsh step was not warranted under the law.
The counsel for the Income Tax Department did not oppose the limited relief sought by the petitioner, which was restricted to quashing the non-bailable warrant.
The Vacation Court, presided over by Justice Advait M. Sethna, observed that the offence under Section 276C(2) is indeed bailable and the Magistrate had passed a cryptic order without assigning any reasons. The court explained that such an order lacked application of mind and was inconsistent with the nature of the offence.
The court observed that the non-bailable warrant was issued despite the presence of the petitioner’s lawyer and the filing of the exemption application.
The court quashed and set aside the order dated 9 April 2025, issuing the non-bailable warrant. It clarified that the ongoing proceedings before the Magistrate on merits would continue in accordance with law.
As to the petitioner’s challenge to the earlier order dated 5 December 2019 regarding the issuance of process, the court directed that the matter be placed before the regular bench for further hearing on 16 June 2025. The department was directed to file a reply before the next date with an advance copy to the petitioner’s advocate.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the maximum punishment for an offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act?
The maximum punishment for an offence under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act is three years.
What did the petitioner's counsel argue in the Bombay High Court?
The petitioner's counsel argued that the offence under Section 276C(2) is bailable in nature, and the maximum punishment prescribed is only three years. They also pointed out that the order was passed without recording any reasons and that the presence of the advocate on record was overlooked.
What was the court's decision regarding the non-bailable warrant?
The court quashed and set aside the non-bailable warrant, clarifying that the ongoing proceedings before the Magistrate on merits would continue in accordance with law.
Why did the court find the non-bailable warrant to be contrary to law?
The court found the non-bailable warrant to be contrary to law because it was issued without application of mind and was inconsistent with the nature of the offence, which is bailable.
What further actions did the court direct in the case?
The court directed that the matter be placed before the regular bench for further hearing on 16 June 2025, and the department was directed to file a reply before the next date with an advance copy to the petitioner’s advocate.
Related News Articles
Sunteck Realty Reports Net Profit of Rs 101.33 Crore in Q4 FY24
Sunteck Realty's net consolidated total income stood at Rs 434.99 crore in Q4 FY24
Due Process Must be Followed by Trademark Registrars in Examining Cases
The Mumbai High Court has ordered the Trademark Registry to re-examine a case involving the transfer of ownership of two trademarks, highlighting the importance of following due process in such cases.
Prestige Estates to Launch 43 New Real Estate Projects Across 7 Cities
The company has a total land bank of 260 acres across Bengaluru, Mangaluru, Mysuru, and Pune.
Pune Real Estate Firm Falls Victim to Rs 24 Lakh Cyber Fraud
An employee from the accounts department of a Pune-based real estate firm was tricked into transferring Rs 24 lakh to fraudulent accounts after receiving a message from someone posing as the company director’s father. The incident highlights the increasin
How REITs and Fractional Ownership are Reshaping the Real Estate Market
With minimum investment thresholds ranging from Rs 10-25 lakh, retail investors now have the opportunity to participate in the real estate market with limited capital.
Bombay High Court Allows Adani Electricity to Cut 209 Mangroves for Infrastructure Project
The Bombay High Court has issued a ruling permitting Adani Electricity Mumbai Infra Ltd. (AEMIL) to cut down 209 mangroves near Vasai Creek for a critical infrastructure project.