Inherent quashing jurisdiction cannot decide disputed defences on non-supply of seized material or wilful failure to file returns.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings does not permit resolution of disputed factual defences concerning alleged wilful failure to furnish returns pursuant to search-assessment notices. Assertions that seized material was requested but not supplied, and that the default lacked wilfulness or mens rea, were disputed and lacked prima facie proof of requests before the stipulated period expired. Such matters require evidence and cannot be determined through a mini-trial at the quashing stage, where the Court assesses only whether a prima facie case exists. The quashing petitions were dismissed, leaving the Trial Court to decide the prosecutions on evidence without being influenced by the order's observations.....