| COURT: | Chief Metropoliton Magistrate |
| CORAM: | Pawan Singh Rajawat (ACMM) |
| SECTION(S): | 276B, 278E, 279(1) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | prosecution, TDS default |
| 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
Recent Comments