https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796418 Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to resolve disputed evidence concerning alleged requests for seized material, its supply to the authorised representative, or the taxpayer's ability and intention to file returns within the period stated in search-assessment notices. The material did not prima facie show that a request had been made before that period expired. Whether the failure to furnish returns was wilful and involved the required mens rea depends on factual adjudication at trial. The note states that quashing of the prosecution was not warranted, leaving these defences for determination by the Trial Court. en-us Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796418 Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to resolve disputed evidence concerning alleged requests for seized material, its supply to the authorised representative, or the taxpayer's ability and intention to file returns within the period stated in search-assessment notices. The material did not prima facie show that a request had been made before that period expired. Whether the failure to furnish returns was wilful and involved the required mens rea depends on factual adjudication at trial. The note states that quashing of the prosecution was not warranted, leaving these defences for determination by the Trial Court. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796418