Prosecution for late deposit of TDS after 11 months. Once there was a non-deposit, necessary consequences shall follow including prosecution- Supreme Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3564 (2021) (12) SC
In the instant case, the assessee had wiled a Writ Petition to challenge the sanction letter for prosecution for late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)
A huge amount in crores though deducted by the petitioner Company as TDS was not deposited in the Government treasury within the prescribed statutory time. It was deposited after 11 months.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Petition stated that once there was a non-deposit, the necessary consequences shall follow including the prosecution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that whatever the submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner-assessee were all defences which were required to be considered by the trial Court during the trial.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when the petitioner approached the High Court to set aside the sanction order under Article 226 of the Constitution by that time the Magistrate had already taken the cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner(s). Therefore, the High Court was justified in observing that the Company and the person incharge were required to face the trial.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter by exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- ESI Corporation Coimbatore invites tenders for Empanelment of CA Firm for FY 2025-26
- Fixing date of personal hearing prior to date of filing reply – GST order quashed
- MCA designates 3 Special Courts for speedy trial of offences u/s 435(2)(b) of Companies Act
- Exemption u/s 54EC allowed for delayed investment in REC Bonds
- There is no provision in GST Act for reserving judgement and delivering it later
