TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complaint and summoning order for failure to deposit deducted tax at source were liable to be quashed at the pre-trial stage on the basis of the petitioner's defence that he was not responsible for the default and that the tax was deposited belatedly.
Analysis: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised at the threshold only where the accused produces material of sterling and unimpeachable quality that rules out the prosecution case. At the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Court is concerned only with whether the complaint discloses the prima facie ingredients of the offence, not with a detailed evaluation of evidence. The complaint and sanction record showed deduction of TDS and failure to deposit it within time, which were foundational facts not disputed. The rival pleas as to which director was responsible, and the plea of reasonable cause or financial difficulty, were disputed factual matters. The subsequent belated payment did not extinguish criminal liability. The presumption under Section 278E and the deeming provision under Section 278B could be rebutted only at trial.
Conclusion: The petitioner failed to show material of such unimpeachable character as would justify quashing; the disputed defences were held to be matters for trial, and the petition was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: At the pre-trial quashing stage, criminal proceedings cannot be stifled unless the accused produces incontrovertible material that completely displaces the allegations; disputed questions of responsibility, culpability, and delayed compliance must be left to trial.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
