New Delhi, June 8: Siddharth Luthra, senior advocate appearing for the state of Karnataka in the J Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case argued that there was never any explanation for the ill-gotten cash.
He was roped in by Karnataka to specifically argue on the matter relating to the six companies and the income tax related matters.
The Supreme Court had heard Luthra yesterday before reserving its verdict in the case. The court also heard arguments by Harin Raval appearing for Jayalalithaa in relation to the same point.
Arguments on companies:
The appeal in question was about the Lex property and five other companies that were attached by the trial court.
Luthra said that these were companies which were used as fronts of ill-gotten cash. There was never any explanation given about these during both the trial as well as the investigation.
He further argued that cash was the basis of the large scale purchase of properties by Sasikala Natrajan. Further Luthra contended that the negotiations about this was done at Poes Garden, Jayalalithaa's residence.
Further Luthra also pointed out that there was unexplained and unaccounted flow of cash when the co-accused took over as the additional directors of the companies. He said that they took over as additional directors without buying any shares.
Coming to the point of income tax, Luthra argued that the returns filed were belated. All these companies enjoyed inter-se transactions and filed income tax returns late.
He even said in some cases the Income Tax was filed after five years trying to explain the delay. Further he said that the companies did not do any business until the year 1994 even through they were incorporated before the check period.
Karnataka also said that the IT returns were only filed once the cases had been filed. This was a way of trying to give a sense of validity for the ill gotten cash. The counsel said that mere filing of IT returns does absolve one of the charges. The court must intervene on this aspect, the counsel further pleaded.
Jayalalithaa's counsel, Raval questioned how Karnataka could file an appeal in this regard after the High Court had set aside the attachment of the companies. The properties that have been attached go to the state of Tamil Nadu and hence Karnataka has no locus standi to file an appeal.