https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26531 A complaint for offences under Sections 276C and 277 could not be sustained against firm partners because it failed to plead the foundational requirement under Section 278B that they were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business. The absence of that essential averment meant the deemed criminal liability provision was not properly invoked, and the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process. The complaint and all proceedings arising from it were quashed. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:05:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26531 A complaint for offences under Sections 276C and 277 could not be sustained against firm partners because it failed to plead the foundational requirement under Section 278B that they were, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business. The absence of that essential averment meant the deemed criminal liability provision was not properly invoked, and the prosecution was treated as an abuse of process. The complaint and all proceedings arising from it were quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26531