Allowing the application the Court held  that mere failure to pay the tax could not be equated with wilful attempt to evade tax. There was material to indicate that within five days of the notice under section 276C(2), the petitioners had deposited the tax due as declared in the return for the assessment year 2010-11 with interest thereon which showed that there was no intent to evade tax. Since the petitioners had declared the income and assessed the self-assessment tax, it could not be contended that there was an attempt to evade tax. It was neither a case of under-reporting of income nor that of showing diminished tax liability. On the date of the lodging of the complaint under section 276C(2) read with section 278B no tax was due including the interest, though there was delay of about eight years in paying the amount of self-assessment tax. The continuation of the prosecution for the offence punishable under section 276C(2) amounted to abuse of the process of the court. It was the conduct of the petitioners, after being served with the show-cause notice, that assumed significance. Payment of tax due under five days of the service of the notice, underscores the bona fides of the applicants. Therefore, the aspect of delay, did not detract materially from the applicants claim. No offence punishable under section 276C(2) had been made out. The criminal proceedings were quashed and set aside. Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State  of  Bihar (1999) 7 SCC 569 ; 1999 SCC (L&S) 1357; 1999 SCC OnLine SC 812, Tolaram Relumal v. State of Bombay (1954) 1 SCC 961; 1954 SCC OnLine SC 22, Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC) / (1989) 3 SCC 52; 1989 SCC (Cri) 509; 1989 SCC (Tax) 389   (AY. 2010-11)