Bombay High Court
Ray Enginnering Pvt Ltd vs Hitendrakumar Rathod Assistant ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: S.M. Modak
Bench: S.M. Modak
LSP 1 4-5 wp 4465.25-4466.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Writ Petition No.4465 of 2025
Joshua Varghese Mukaladiyil and ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
Hitendrakumar Rathod and others ... Respondents
With Criminal Writ Petition No.4466 of 2025 Ray Engineering Pvt. Ltd. And anr. ... Petitioners V/s.
Hitendrakumar Rathod and others ... Respondents Digitally signed by LATA LATA SUNIL Mr. Vipul Shah Advocate for the Petitioners in SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANI Date: WP No.4465/25.
2025.08.22 19:15:22 Mr. Ujwal Shah Advocate fort he Petitioners in +0530 WP No.4466/25.
Mr. Amit Munde, SPP a/w. Advocates for Income tax dept.-
Advocate Jai Vohra Respondents.
Ms. S.E. Phad APP for the State.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J
DATE : 21st August 2025.
P.C. :
Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioners and learned Advocate for the Respondents-Complainant.
2. There is a private complaint filed by the Respondent before the ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:46:17 ::: LSP 2 4-5 wp 4465.25-4466.doc Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mazgaon at Mumbai. There are in all 5 accused persons. Out of them Accused No.1 is a Company and Accused No.5 is the Managing Director. Both of them are Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4466/2025 whereas other accused are described as Directors. They are the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4465/2025.
3. The submission on behalf of Company and Managing Director is there is a reason for not depositing the TDS. Reliance is placed on wordings of Section 278AA of the Income Tax Act. It talks about considering the reasonable cause for failure at the time of imposing punishment whereas according to Mr. Munde the offence is complete once there is a failure to credit the amount of TDS within the prescribed period. He relies upon the wordings of Section 276B of the Income Tax Act. On a prima-facie reading what appears is Section 278AA will come into picture at the time of imposing punishment. Mr. Munde wants to file affidavit-in-reply. Mr. Munde also relied upon the wordings of Section 278B of the Income-tax Act. It talks about who can be joined as an accused if the offence is committed by the Company. The Respondent is granted time to file affidavit-in-reply. I am not in favour of granting interim-relief to these Petitioners. Let them appear before the trial Court and complete the formalities.
4. Whereas Writ Petition No.4465/2025 these Petitioners are the Directors and my attention is invited to the averments in Para No.8 ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:46:17 ::: LSP 3 4-5 wp 4465.25-4466.doc of the complaint. Time is granted to the Respondents to file affidavit-in-reply. Stand over to 9th October 2025.
5. Now the matter is fixed before the trial Court on 25 th August 2025. Let the Petitioners to apply for exemption before the trial Court and seek time to furnish bail. Trial Court to consider it positively.
(S.M. MODAK, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2025 23:46:17 :::