Patna High Court
Ganga Solvent And Ors. And Hanuman Rice ... vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 21 May, 1996
JUDGMENT R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceedings pending against them in Complaint Case No. 8 of 1990/TR 1914/1990 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 276B 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 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the impugned order.
2. 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.
3. 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(1A) 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 276B 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.