SUMAC INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. Vs. INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have been impleaded as accused in a complaint filed by Shri A.K. Fotedar, IAC, IT Department, Government of India under Section 276B of the IT Act.

(2.) PETITIONER of Criminal Misc. Case No. 3248 of 2002 is accused No. 1. Petitioners of Criminal Misc. Case No. 307 of 2003 are the directors of the first accused, i.e. the company.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners the tax at source had to be deducted and deposited only at the time of making payment and not when money was credited to the account of the person to whom it was to be paid and that in respect of the transaction in question it had to pay royalty to a foreign national. For the assessment year in question, total royalty payable was Rs. 6,42,376.40 per cent of the royalty had to be deducted at source, i.e. Rs. 2,25,690 had to be deducted. That the RBI did not give permission to remit the money to the foreign company and hence notwithstanding the company having credited Rs. 6,42,376 payable towards royalty since none was actually paid, nothing had to be paid to the Government Treasury. Petitioners explain having deposited Rs. 86,340 as an erroneous deposit of tax at source at their end.