Quashing of prosecution for non-payment of admitted tax rejected where liability was disclosed and proceedings had already advanced.

Prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act was not liable to be quashed where the return itself disclosed the tax liability, the admitted tax was not paid within the stipulated or extended time, and no payment was made even after the assessment order crystallised a larger demand. The Court treated the belated quash challenge, raised after the prosecution had substantially progressed and on grounds already urged before the trial court, as insufficient to show absence of the offence's ingredients or abuse of process. It declined to interfere with the prosecution at the quash stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be quashed on the ground that the assessee had only failed to pay admitted tax and that no wilful attempt to evade tax was made.

Analysis: The return of income disclosed the tax liability, but the admitted liability was not discharged within the stipulated or extended time. The assessment order subsequently crystallised a larger demand, and no payment was made even thereafter. The challenge was raised at a belated stage after the prosecution had substantially progressed, and the same contentions had already been agitated before the trial court. In these circumstances, the Court found no basis to conclude that the proceedings lacked the ingredients of the alleged offence or that the prosecution was an abuse of process at the quash stage.

Conclusion: The Court held that the quash petition was not maintainable on these grounds and declined to interfere with the prosecution.

---