TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 1,35,54,167/- respectively. 2. The impugned action is assailed by the petitioners on the following grounds:- First, the show-cause notice is issued in respect of nine companies whereas the prosecution is launched only against the petitioners which is legally untenable. The Company is a juristic person and in terms of section 2(35) of the Act, notice is required to be issued to each of the companies individually and not a composite notice as done in the instant case. Hence, the prosecution launched against the petitioners suffers from basic vice. Second, the show cause notice was issued only to petitioner No.1 namely Managing Director and not to the Company - petitioner No.2 and in that view also, the prosecution launched against the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipal Officer of the Company. After narrating the circumstances of notice, it is stated therein that the said notice was issued to convey the intention of the Department to treat him as the Principal Officer of the above companies. It is not a show cause notice. On the other hand, in the complaint, it is specifically stated that show cause notice was issued to accused on 14.08.2013. Petitioner has not referred to the said document. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for petitioners based on Annexure-'B' is totally misconceived and cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. 4. The second contention urged by petitioners is also misconceived for the reason that the said argument is also built upon Annexure-'B'. Learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nothing on record to show that the remittances made by petitioners have been brought to the notice of the Central Government. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners has produced the copies of the communication obtained from the Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Circle-I(1), Bangalore along with challan details report for making payments. It reflects that on 10.09.2014 a sum of Rs. 1,52,675/- and another sum of Rs,1,69,974/- was remitted not by the petitioners herein, but by Avestha Gengraine Technologies Private Limited. The said remittances do not relate to the case in hand. As a result, even the sanction order does not reflect any errors warranting interference by this Court. Hence, this argument is also rejected. 7. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umed that Parliament intended it to be modified so as to remove the impossibility element." This Court applied the doctrine of impossibility of performance [Lex non cogit ad impossibilia] in numerous cases [State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh 1985 (Suppl.) SCC 416; Special Reference No.1 of 2002 under Article 143(i) of the Constitution of India [2002] 8 SCC 237]. 31. As the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, the court has to resort to punishment of imposition of fine which is also a prescribed punishment. As per the scheme of various enactments and also the Indian Penal Code, mandatory custodial sentence is prescribed for graver offences. If the appellants' plea is accepted, no company or corporate bodies could be prosecute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Then the court would not be passing the sentence in accordance with law. As regards company, the court can always impose a sentence of fine and the sentence of imprisonment can be ignored as it is impossible to be carried out in respect of a company. This appears to be the intention of the Legislature and we find no difficulty in construing the statute in such a way. We do not think that there is a blanket immunity for any company from any prosecution for serious offences merely because the prosecution would ultimately entail a sentence of mandatory imprisonment. The corporate bodies, such as a firm or company undertake series of activities that affect the life, liberty and property of the citizens. Large scale financial irregularities are ....