Dr Manoj Khanna Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Brief facts:
The complaint arose from alleged defaults by M/s Enhance Aesthetic and Cosmetics Studio Pvt Ltd during the financial year 2017-18. According to the sanctioning authority, the company had deducted TDS aggregating to Rs 2.09 crore but failed to deposit the amount within the statutory time. Show cause notices were issued, replies were submitted by one of the directors, and a formal sanction order under Section 279 was passed in May 2022 for launching prosecution.
Dr Manoj Khanna, the Managing Director and majority shareholder, was summoned as an accused along with the company and other directors. He approached the High Court seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order, contending that he was not responsible for deduction or deposit of TDS and that another director had admitted responsibility.
Scope of Interference Under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS
The High Court reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, emphasising that at the pre-trial stage the Court does not evaluate disputed questions of fact, assess sufficiency of evidence, or conduct a mini-trial. Quashing is warranted only where the accused produces unimpeachable and incontrovertible material that completely demolishes the foundation of the complaint.
