https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30624 Vicarious criminal liability under Section 278B of the Income-tax Act arises only where the complaint specifically alleges that the accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the company at the time the offence was committed. General and collective allegations are insufficient, and the complaint must set out a bare minimum factual foundation before directors can be proceeded against. The continuing-offence argument was rejected because liability under the provision is tied to the time of commission of the default; a director who joined later is not automatically liable unless the statute and the complaint clearly support that result. On the stated facts, the complaint did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. en-us Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30624 Vicarious criminal liability under Section 278B of the Income-tax Act arises only where the complaint specifically alleges that the accused was in charge of, and responsible for, the company at the time the offence was committed. General and collective allegations are insufficient, and the complaint must set out a bare minimum factual foundation before directors can be proceeded against. The continuing-offence argument was rejected because liability under the provision is tied to the time of commission of the default; a director who joined later is not automatically liable unless the statute and the complaint clearly support that result. On the stated facts, the complaint did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30624