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 >>
- Net profit rate may not have variation commensurate to increase of turnover
- Mushroom growing apparatus cannot be classified as ‘agricultural machinery’
- Statutory presumption attached to issuance of a cheque to be accorded due weight – SC
- Highest bid can’t be discarded on mere expectation of even more higher bid
- Limitation Act 1963 not apply to quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals unless empowered
