https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782960 At the pre-trial quashing stage, inherent jurisdiction may be used only where the accused produces sterling, unimpeachable material that completely displaces the prosecution case. In a prosecution for failure to deposit deducted tax at source, the Court held that the complaint disclosed the prima facie ingredients of the offence, including deduction of TDS and non-deposit within time. Disputes over which director was responsible, claims of reasonable cause or financial difficulty, and belated payment were factual matters for trial. The presumptions under Section 278E and the deeming rule under Section 278B could not be conclusively rebutted on the quashing petition, so the complaint and summoning order were not quashed. en-us Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Dec 2025 08:46:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782960 At the pre-trial quashing stage, inherent jurisdiction may be used only where the accused produces sterling, unimpeachable material that completely displaces the prosecution case. In a prosecution for failure to deposit deducted tax at source, the Court held that the complaint disclosed the prima facie ingredients of the offence, including deduction of TDS and non-deposit within time. Disputes over which director was responsible, claims of reasonable cause or financial difficulty, and belated payment were factual matters for trial. The presumptions under Section 278E and the deeming rule under Section 278B could not be conclusively rebutted on the quashing petition, so the complaint and summoning order were not quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 02 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782960