https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792438 Alleged wilful failure to deduct or remit TDS under section 276B was not quashed in inherent jurisdiction because notice had been issued and served, and the applicants did not comply with the requirement to appear before the authority. The court treated objections on limitation, procedural non-compliance, actual service, and delay in trial as triable factual disputes rather than grounds for quashing at the threshold. The statutory scheme under sections 201(1A), 221(1), 276B and 279(1) was considered sufficient to sustain the prosecution, and the offence remained compoundable, though no settlement had been reached. en-us Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2026 08:21:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792438 Alleged wilful failure to deduct or remit TDS under section 276B was not quashed in inherent jurisdiction because notice had been issued and served, and the applicants did not comply with the requirement to appear before the authority. The court treated objections on limitation, procedural non-compliance, actual service, and delay in trial as triable factual disputes rather than grounds for quashing at the threshold. The statutory scheme under sections 201(1A), 221(1), 276B and 279(1) was considered sufficient to sustain the prosecution, and the offence remained compoundable, though no settlement had been reached. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792438