Inherent jurisdiction cannot decide disputed evidence or wilful default in prosecutions for failure to furnish search-assessment returns.

Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to resolve disputed evidence concerning alleged requests for seized material, its supply to the authorised representative, or the taxpayer's ability and intention to file returns within the period stated in search-assessment notices. The material did not prima facie show that a request had been made before that period expired. Whether the failure to furnish returns was wilful and involved the required mens rea depends on factual adjudication at trial. The note states that quashing of the prosecution was not warranted, leaving these defences for determination by the Trial Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecutions for wilful failure to furnish returns pursuant to search-assessment notices could be quashed under inherent jurisdiction when the alleged non-supply of seized material and the existence of wilful default were disputed factual matters.

Analysis: The alleged requests for search and seizure material, their receipt by the Department, supply of the material to the authorised representative, and the petitioner's ability and intention to furnish returns within the stipulated period were contested. The record did not prima facie establish that a request for the material had been made before expiry of the period prescribed in the notice. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to evaluate disputed evidence, determine the accused's factual defence, or decide the existence of wilful default or mens rea; those matters require adjudication on evidence at trial.

Conclusion: Quashing was not warranted; the disputed factual defences concerning wilful failure to file returns must be determined by the Trial Court.

---