Rajasthan High Court refuses to quash Section 276CC prosecution against Gold Sukh Trade director

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to quash six criminal complaints pending under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against a director of M/s Gold Sukh Trade India Limited for non-filing of income tax returns, holding that whether the default was willful and whether the seized documents were ever supplied to him are disputed questions of fact that can be decided only by the trial court.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court cannot enter into disputed questions of fact or weigh factual defences, and noted that the petitioner’s plea of non-supply of the search material stood seriously disputed by the Income Tax Department.

“At this initial stage, this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to conduct a ‘mini-trial’ or ‘fishing enquiry’ or weigh the sufficiency of the evidence. Certainly, this task falls within the domain of the Trial Court and is supposed to be undertaken by the Trial Court itself at the appropriate stage of trial,” the Court observed.

The petitioner, Babloo Sharma alias Pramod Sharma, had filed six criminal misc. petitions seeking quashing of the prosecution proceedings pending against him before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur Metropolitan-II, initiated on the allegation of non-filing of revised income tax returns for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 within the time prescribed in a notice issued under Section 153A of the Act of 1961.

A search was conducted by the Income Tax Department on Nov 18, 2010 at the business and residential premises of Gold Sukh Trade India Limited and its directors, including the petitioner. Thereafter, a notice dated Aug 9, 2011 under Section 153A was issued to him, which he received on Aug 11, 2011, requiring him to file returns within 35 days — a period that expired on Sep 15, 2011.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that letters dated Dec 6, 2010 and Jan 19, 2011, followed by another letter dated Oct 19, 2011, were sent to the Department seeking copies of the material seized during the search along with the panchnama and the statements recorded by the search party, but the documents were never supplied. Since the desired documents were not furnished, it was argued, the petitioner was not in a position to file his returns and there was no willful default on his part. Reliance was placed on Lal Saraf v State of Bihar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v V.K. Gupta and The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 v Rajendra Prasad Vaish.

Opposing the petitions, counsel for the Department raised an objection of inordinate delay of 8 years, pointing out that the complaints were filed in 2013 while the petitions came to be filed only in 2021 without any justified reason. It was submitted that the petitioner wrote to the Department for the first time on Oct 19, 2011 — after the 35-day period had already expired — and the desired documents were supplied to his authorised representative on the very same day, and again on Nov 21, 2011. Whether those documents were received by the authorised representative or not, it was contended, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Reliance was placed on Anukul Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja v State of Gujarat, HMT Watches Ltd. v M.A. Abida and Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor.

The Court framed the questions arising for consideration — whether the petitioner had requested the Department on Dec 6, 2010 and Jan 19, 2011 for the seizure documents and panchnama, whether the request was made for the first time on Oct 19, 2011 after expiry of the prescribed period, and whether the desired documents were supplied to his authorised representative — and held that all of them were disputed questions of fact required to be proved by both sides by leading evidence.

Referring to the law laid down in Rajiv Thapar, HMT Watches and Anukul Singh, along with the illustrative categories in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, Justice Dhand noted that not a single letter dated Dec 6, 2010 or Jan 19, 2011 had been placed on record by the petitioner, and no document demonstrated that any request was made to the Department between receipt of the notice and expiry of the 35-day period on Sep 15, 2011.

“Hence, in absence of such prima facie evidence, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner was ‘innocent’ or not or that non-filing of the Income Tax Return within the prescribed time was willful or not? and Whether there was any ‘mensrea’ in the mind or on the part of the petitioner or not? All these questions are disputed questions of facts which need to be proved and established by the petitioner and the respondents at the appropriate stage of the trial and certainly these disputed questions of facts would be appreciated by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage by evaluating the evidence led by both the sides,” the Court held.

Finding no merit and substance in the petitions, the Court rejected them on Jul 28, 2026 along with the stay applications and all pending applications, while clarifying in its parting remarks that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits and directing the trial court to decide the pending matters on the basis of the evidence led by both sides, uninfluenced by the observations made in the order.

Title: Babloo Sharma alias Pramod Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2784/2021 with five connected petitions

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:28285]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Mr. Aryan Kukkar

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP; Mr. Sandeep Pathak; Ms. Jaya Pathak; Ms. Shafali Sharma