1999 PLP 1773 (PTD)
GANGA SOLVENT and others Versus STATE OF BIHAR and another
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1773 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 226 I T R 401 |
| Bench Members | R. N. Prasad, J |
| Parties | GANGA SOLVENT and others Versus STATE OF BIHAR and another |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1773 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1773 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 226 I T R 401 bench comprising: R. N. Prasad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1773 (PTD) (GANGA SOLVENT and others Versus STATE OF BIHAR and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Offences and prosecution
Deduction of tax at source--.-Notification by Government of India that where interest payable under Ss. 192 to 195 is less than Rs.10,000, prosecution need not be launched
Finding that cumulative interest was less than Rs.10,000 and tax was also paid
Prosecution liable to be quashed
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 192, 193, 194, 195, 201(1-A) & 276-B. The Government of India has issued a notification stating that prosecution need not be initiated where the cumulative interest payable under S.201(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for all the years involved in respect of the tax deducted at source under sections 192 to 195 is less than Rs.10,000 and the tax was also paid to the credit of the Central Government: Held, that the allegation was of delay in payment of tax deducted at source and the interest on this was less than two hundred rupees. The prosecutions were liable to be quashed.
Judgment & Decree
R. N. PRASAD, J.
The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in Complaint Case No.8 of 1990/TR 1914 of 1990 pending before Special Judge (Economic Offences), Muzaffarpur, including the order, dated January 19, 1990, whereby cognizance against them has been taken for the offence under section 276-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Opposite party No.2 filed a complaint case against the petitioners alleging therein that the petitioners deposited the tax deducted at source after a delay of 45 days. On the aforesaid complaint petition cognizance against the petitioners has been taken for the offence under section 276-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegation is of delay in payment of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.11,680 and the interest thereon is within Rs.200. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit today in Court annexing the notification of the Union of India (Annexure "5"), wherein it has been stated that the prosecution need not be initiated where the cumulative interest payable under section 201(1-A) for all the years involved in respect of the tax deducted at source under sections 192 to 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is less than Rs.10,000 and the tax is also paid to the credit of the Central Government. Learned counsel pointed out that there is only allegation of delay in payment of tax and hence the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under section 276-B of the Income Tax Act is bad in law. Learned counsel for Income Tax, Mr. Sharan, contended that in view of the notification contained in Annexure "5" of the supplementary affidavit, the prosecution is liable to be discontinued. On a consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that the allegation is of delay in payment of tax of about Rs.11,
680. On calculation, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the interest would be less than Rs.200. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the Union of India and also in view of the notification contained in Annexure "5" of the supplementary affidavit, the continuance of the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is hereby quashed. M.B.A./1931/FC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application allowed.