Home ›

Search Results For: Chief Metropoliton Magistrate

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 3, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 192 TDS/ 276B: A complaint by the Dept regarding 12 month delay in paying TDS to the Govt is maintainable. Deposit of TDS with interest does not absolve criminal liability. Plea that delay was caused due to financial hardship has to be proved. However, as there is no allegation by the Dept that accused is irregular in paying taxes other than the case in hand, the minimum punishment of 3 months rigorous imprisonment and fine will have to be awarded. The Court has no discretion to reduce the sentence

In view of aforesaid reasons arguments advanced on behalf of defence holds no ground. Defence utterly failed to prove the submissions by leading evidence as stated above. Considering the above referred authority and the present case, it appears that if the payment is made at belated stage then it will be treated as default and appropriate action can be taken under this Act. It also clear that deposit of TDS with delay does not absolve criminal liability. If it is considered that accused paid the amount after period of 12 months, in such circumstance, complaint is maintainable and it does not absolve criminal liability of the accused persons

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 1, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276B Prosecution for delay in payment of TDS: The default is complete if the TDS is not deposited in time. Late deposit does not absolve the accused. The accused has no right to retain the TDS amount and use it for any other purpose. Pleas of financial problem, incompetent staff, accountant's negligence, unawareness about law etc are not acceptable as a defense (Madhumilan Syntex AIR 2007 SC (148) followed)

Considering all the discussion and record, it clear that the accused deducted TDS amount for the relevant financial year 20092010 but failed to deposit the TDS amount with Government account within stipulated time. The accused is responsible person to pay the amount within time. The factum of non deposit of tax amount within time has been proved and admitted by the accused during statement recorded u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, no further evidence is required to prove the case of the complainant. Admission is the best evidence to prove the allegations. Thus, in view of aforesaid case laws and admission by the accused, the case of complainant stands proved. All the facts clearly indicates that accused deducted the TDS for the relevant period and did not deposit the same with Government account within stipulated period and withheld the same for her own use. Accused can not be allowed to use the tax amount, so deducted for any other purpose. The TDS deducted on behalf of the Government and should be deposited in Government account. Deductor is not supposed to finance their business through Government money. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record, I come to conclusion that the accused is the person to pay tax within time and accused failed to deposit TDS within time. Therefore, the complainant has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proved the guilt of the accused u/s. 276B of I.T. Act.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276B, 279(1), 278E Prosecution for non-deposit of TDS: In the case of default, Mens rea has to be presumed to exist. It is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond reasonable doubt. The plea that default in payment of TDS occurred due to delay by department in refunding excess TDS due to the assessee is not acceptable because amount deducted by way of TDS has to be deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any counter claim of the assessee

The plea of accused that since the complainant department has delayed the refund of TDS, therefore, the default occurred is not maintainable as the amount deducted by way of TDS is to be deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any counter claim of the assessee. CW-1 has stated that the refund takes about six months for processing and accused cannot take benefit of delay in release of the refund amount. Another plea of recession in the hospitality section is also not maintainable as discussed above

Read more ›