Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held that the complaints could not be quashed on the ground that no notice under section 2(35) of the Income Act was issued to the directors. Further, the question as to whether the directors were in charge of and responsible to the company for its business was factual and had to be agitated only before the trial court. Explained the ratio in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. UOI (2007) 290 ITR 199 (SC)
Mehala Machines India Ltd. v. ITO (2023)455 ITR 20/151 taxmann.com 404 (Mad) (HC)
S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Company-Directors-Separate notice to directors is not necessary-Directors could be as principal officer-Could be agitated before Trail court. [S. 2(35), 278B]