TDS prosecution under section 276B survives quashing challenge where notice was served and procedural objections remained triable issues.

Alleged wilful failure to deduct or remit TDS under section 276B was not quashed in inherent jurisdiction because notice had been issued and served, and the applicants did not comply with the requirement to appear before the authority. The court treated objections on limitation, procedural non-compliance, actual service, and delay in trial as triable factual disputes rather than grounds for quashing at the threshold. The statutory scheme under sections 201(1A), 221(1), 276B and 279(1) was considered sufficient to sustain the prosecution, and the offence remained compoundable, though no settlement had been reached.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from alleged failure to remit TDS, deserved to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction on the grounds of absence of notice, limitation, non-compliance with procedural requirements, and delay in trial.

Analysis: The applicants assailed the continuance of the complaint on the premise that the prosecution was barred by limitation, that mandatory procedural safeguards had not been followed, and that the long pendency of the matter violated the right to speedy trial. The record showed that notice had been issued and served, requiring appearance before the competent authority, and the applicants did not comply. The statutory scheme under sections 201(1A), 221(1), 276B and 279(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was treated as sufficient to sustain prosecution for wilful failure to deduct or remit tax at source, and the dispute regarding actual service and other technical objections was regarded as a triable factual issue. The offence was also noted to be compoundable, but no settlement had been reached.

Conclusion: The application for quashing was not maintainable on the facts and the prosecution under section 276B was allowed to continue.

---