https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18502 A petition under section 482 CrPC remained maintainable even though the impugned order had been challenged in revision, because the High Court's inherent jurisdiction is not wholly barred and can be used to prevent abuse of process or meet extraordinary circumstances. In prosecutions for failure to deduct and deposit tax at source under sections 194A, 200 and 276B of the Income-tax Act read with rule 30, the offence was treated as complete on default; mens rea was not an essential ingredient and late deposit did not erase liability. The accused had to show reasonable cause for non-compliance, and the discharge orders were set aside so the complaint could proceed to framing of charges. en-us Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:11:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18502 A petition under section 482 CrPC remained maintainable even though the impugned order had been challenged in revision, because the High Court's inherent jurisdiction is not wholly barred and can be used to prevent abuse of process or meet extraordinary circumstances. In prosecutions for failure to deduct and deposit tax at source under sections 194A, 200 and 276B of the Income-tax Act read with rule 30, the offence was treated as complete on default; mens rea was not an essential ingredient and late deposit did not erase liability. The accused had to show reasonable cause for non-compliance, and the discharge orders were set aside so the complaint could proceed to framing of charges. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18502