HC declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash prosecution for offences under Sections 276B, 278B and 278E. The Court held that foundational facts of deduction but non-deposit of TDS within time stand admitted and prima facie ingredients of the offence are disclosed. Rival claims between directors regarding who controlled financial affairs and was responsible for TDS compliance were held to be pure questions of fact. In view of the deeming liability under Section 278B and presumption of culpable mental state under Section 278E, defences of lack of responsibility or reasonable cause can only be tested at trial. Petition was dismissed and proceedings directed to continue.
HC declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash prosecution for offences under Sections 276B, 278B and 278E. The Court held that foundational facts of deduction but non-deposit of TDS within time stand admitted and prima facie ingredients of the offence are disclosed. Rival claims between directors regarding who controlled financial affairs and was responsible for TDS compliance were held to be pure questions of fact. In view of the deeming liability under Section 278B and presumption of culpable mental state under Section 278E, defences of lack of responsibility or reasonable cause can only be tested at trial. Petition was dismissed and proceedings directed to continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
