Bombay HC quashes proceedings against Chanda Kochhar, ICICI Bank officials in octroi evasion case

The Bombay High Court has partially quashed criminal proceedings against senior ICICI Bank officials, including former Managing Director Chanda Kochhar, in a case alleging evasion of octroi on gold coins imported into Pune, Bar and Bench reported on Friday.

Justice Neela Gokhale, however, allowed the prosecution of the bank to continue.

The judge set aside the complaint and summons issued to four persons – Kochhar, former Deputy Managing Director Nachiket Mor, a legal department official and the Pune branch manager.

The Pune Municipal Corporation had alleged in a complaint that the bank brought gold bullion and coins into the city between April 2006 and August 2009 without paying octroi, despite notices issued in September and October 2009.

Octroi was a municipal tax on goods brought into a city for use, consumption or sale. It was abolished upon the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax regime on July 1, 2017.

The Pune Municipal Corporation, in its complaint, alleged that the bank had not paid octroi to the tune of Rs 1.27 crore.

However, the court said that the civic body could not specifically attribute any role to the four individuals in its complaint, The Hindu reported.

The Pune Municipal Corporation had filed the complaint on October 31, 2009. The Judicial Magistrate First Class had issued summons in the matter on November 20 that year.

In the proceedings before the High Court, the lawyer for Kochhar and the other ICICI bank officials, Faisal Ali Sayyed, contended that in the absence of any specific allegations against them, they could not be held liable for the penalty.

Abhijit Kulkarni, the lawyer for the civic body, had argued that the offence was complete as soon as the goods crossed municipal limits and there was “no requirement of anything else to be done to allege contravention”, The Hindu reported.

The court held that the mere designation of a director or any other official post was not enough, and the complainant needed to specify how the individual was in charge of the conduct of the business at the relevant time.