SANKARA SUBRAMANIAM RAMNATH vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

21.WP-3823.25.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3823 OF 2025 Sankara Subramaniam Ramnath … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents ______________________ Mr. Akshay Shah a/w Mr. Harsh Shah, for the Petitioner. Ms. S. M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Amit Munde, Special Public Prosecutor a/w Mr. Shantanu Nakashe and Mr. Parth Tari for the Respondent No.2- Income Tax Dept. ______________________ CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 11 AUGUST 2026 P. C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Munde, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. 2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the challenge by the Petitioner i.e. Accused no. 4 is to the sanction order dated 08 March 2018 passed by the Respodent No.2 under Section 279(1) of Income Tax Act for the offences punishable under section 276-B read with 278-B of Page 1 PPN PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Digitally signed by PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.08.17 15:20:53 +0530

21.WP-3823.25.DOC Income Tax Act, 1961 and seeking quashing of complaint case bearing no. SW/0000909/2018 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court, 38th Court, Criminal Court, Ballard Pier at Mazgaon, District Mumbai for the offences punishable under section 276-B read with 278-B of Income Tax Act, 1960. 3. It is the submission of the Petitioner that the period of alleged offence is 01 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 and the Petitioner appointed as Nominee Director on 9 May 2017 and he resigned as such on 7 February 2020. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the Petitioner who is a Nominee Director apart from the fact that he was not concerned with the company during the relavant period is not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company as he is a Nominee Director. He therefore, submits that the reliefs sought in the petition be granted. 4. On the other hand, learned Mr. Munde, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) submits that the showcause notice was issued on 23 February 2018 and to the said showcause notice, no reply has been given by the Petitioner. Learned SPP submits that in any case Page 2 PPN

21.WP-3823.25.DOC it is triable issue whether the Petitioner is reponsible for conduct of the business of the company and therefore no interference at this stage is warranted. 5. As far as the contentions raised by the Learned SPP that no response was given to the showcause notice, it is contended by the Petitioner that no such notice has been received by the Petitioner. 6. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to note certain factual aspects. (i) Admitedly, the said complaint has been filed under section 276-B read with 278-B of Income Tax Act for the delayed payment of TDS amount by Assessee Company for the financial year 2016-2017. Thus the relavant period is from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. (ii) The records annexed to the petition which is avaliable on the website of Ministry of Corperate Affairs show that the Petitioner has been appointed as Nominee Director of the Accused no. 1 company on 9 May 2017 and he resigned as Nominee Director on 7 February 2018. Page 3 PPN

21.WP-3823.25.DOC 7. Thus, it is clear that when the offence took place during the period of 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, the Petitioner was not even the Nominee Director of Accused no. 1 company. Learned SPP is right in pointing out that no reply has been given to the showcause notice issued under section 279(1) of Income Tax Act dated 23 February 2020. Although it is the contention of the Petitioner that the said notice has not been recieved, assuming that such notice was received and no reply has been filed, then also, in any case, material on record clearly shows that when the alleged offence took place the Petitioner was not at all concerned with the Accused no. 1-company as the Petitioner was appointed as Nominee Director of Accused No. 1-company on 9 May 2017. 8. In any case, Petitioner is merely a Nominee Director and his period is from 9 May 2017 to 7 February 2018. The sanctioned order clearly specifies the period of alleged offence, as during the period of financial year 2016-2017 i.e. 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017. Thus it is apparent that the Petitioner was not concerned with the Accused no. 1 company during that period and he was appointed as Nominee Director on 9 May 2017. Page 4 PPN

21.WP-3823.25.DOC 9. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside sanction order dated 8 March 2018 only qua the petitoner i.e. the Accused no 4. Resultantly, the complaint case bearing no. SW/0000909/2018 lodged for the offences punishable under section 276-B read with 278-B of Income Tax Act, 1961 is also quashed only qua the Petitioner i.e. the Accused no. 4 and the order issuing process dated 14 September 2018 qua Petitioner i.e. original Accused no. 4 is also quashed and set aisde. 10. It is clarified that the said sanction order dated 8 March 2018 and order dated 14 September 2018 continues to remain in operation against other accused. Resultantly, said complaint case bearing no. SW/0000909/2018 shall be processed with against other accused in accordance with law. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 5 PPN