Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : S.M. Jain @ Shetan Mal Jain Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)
Appeal Number : Cr. M. P. No.1931 of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 10/04/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

S.M. Jain @ Shetan Mal Jain Vs State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court)

Prosecution case against this petitioner who was serving as Adviser Finance and other officers of HEC is that TDS deductions were not remitted to Income Tax Department on time.

The main ground taken by the petitioner is that he is neither an employee of HEC, Ltd., nor he is responsible for collection of tax, on behalf of the HEC, from any contractors, employees or others. He was a retainer and not a regular employee and not responsible for deducting tax from any one. It is also his case that he is not responsible for depositing any amount as tax on behalf of the HEC, Ltd. It has been submitted that the complaint petition clearly suggests that the petitioner is merely an advisor. It is submitted that the petitioner is an independent consultant hired by HEC, Ltd., on contractual retainer-ship basis, for the purpose of improving the system of finance and costing. It has been further submitted that in terms of the Income Tax Act, this petitioner can never be held responsible for the alleged offence committed by the company or its employees. He submits that on the aforesaid facts no offence under the provision of I.P.C is made out against the petitioner.

it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not an employee of HEC, Ltd. The petitioner being not the employee of HEC, never had any control over the affairs of the company including the liability of deducting tax from the employees or the contractor and 4 depositing the same with the department.

The petitioner neither falls within the definition of “Assessee”, “Principal Officer” nor an “Employee”. He was also not part and parcel of the management of HEC. The complaint also does not specify any overt act against the petitioner nor it has a single sentence to the effect that the petitioner is responsible for any of the acts which can attract any penal consequences nor it mentions that he was responsible for the daily affairs of the company.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031