OTHERS 588 (4) (2008)17 SCC 285 TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD v. RASIPURAM TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS (5)

8 SCC 89Reported decision2005#1045 most cited

What is OTHERS 588 (4) (2008)17 SCC 285 TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD v. RASIPURAM TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS (5) authority for?

The Supreme Court determined that a prosecution can only be initiated against a company if it is proven that the company was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, and that the company was, with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to, any negligence on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. Rasipuram Textile Private Limited · mens rea · company liability · prosecution · director liability · manager liability · negligence · consent · connivance

Judgments citing OTHERS 588 (4) (2008)17 SCC 285 TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD v. RASIPURAM TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED & OTHERS (5)

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri M M Ananthamurthy

RP/726/2012HC Karnataka06 Jul 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

…le any material document to an accused is only at the stage of trial. The ratio of the said decision has been followed in the case of Hem Chand vs. State of Jharkhand, (2008) 5 SCC 113. 12. In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another, (2005) 8 SCC 89, which decision is by a 12 Larger Bench, the ratio of law laid down in the case of Deebendra Nath Padhi (supra), was reiterated by holding as follows: “7. As to what should be the averments in a complaint, assumes importance in view of the fact that, at the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate will have before him only the complaint and th…

Commnr. Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd

The appeal is allowed; the

C.A. No.-003051-003051 - 2003Supreme Court16 Dec 2010
Section 11Section 35

…r Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.8, it is trite that the foundation of the Revenue’s case is laid in the show cause notice, and the same must be confined to the allegations contained therein. 5 (2008) 2 SCC 628 6 (2005) 4 SCC 207 7 (2006) 7 SCC 592 8 (2007) 8 SCC 89 7 10. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be useful to extract relevant portions of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28th February, 1993 as amended, which grants exemption from payment of Central Excise duty to small scale industrial units. It read as: “4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the spec…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. M/S. Shital International

C.A. No.-001689-001690 - 2003Supreme Court22 Oct 2010
Section 35

…ever, in the show cause notice dated 12th December 2000, the process of electrifying polish finds a brief mention. Therefore, in light of the settled legal position, the plea of the learned counsel for the revenue in 7 (2006) 7 SCC 592 8 (2007) 8 SCC 89 9 (2009) 9 SCC 466 17 that behalf cannot be entertained as the revenue cannot be allowed to raise a fresh plea, which has not been raised in the Show Cause notice nor can it be allowed to take contradictory stands in relation to the same assessee. 18. In light of the foregoing discussion, we are in agreement with the Tribunal…