Introduction
In the case of SM Jain v. State of Jharkhand[i], the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand (‘HC’) delivered a pivotal ruling, establishing that financial advisors cannot be held accountable for a company’s defaults in paying tax deducted at source (‘TDS’). This judgment provides substantial relief to professionals in the finance advisory field. However, while setting a precedent, the court’s analysis lacked comprehensiveness. The ruling involved overturning an order that had taken cognisance against the company’s finance advisors under provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Facts
The petitioner, acting as the finance advisor for Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (‘HEC’), faced allegations that during the fiscal years of 1995-96 and thereafter, tax deductions from payments to contractors, employees, and others were not deposited within the stipulated period under the IT Act.
In response to a notice from the Union of India via the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi (‘Complainant’), the petitioner explained that the delay in TDS remittance was due to HEC’s financial distress. The Complainant deemed the response unsatisfactory and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under the IT Act. Simultaneously, a complaint was lodged for prosecution proceedings, alleging offences under relevant s. 276B read with s. 278B of the IT Act and ss. 409 and 34 of IPC.
The learned Special Judge took cognisance of the offence and issued a summons to the petitioner. Challenging this order, the petitioner filed a petition seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him, contending that he was not responsible for tax deposition on behalf of HEC. He asserted his role as an independent consultant, hired on a contractual retainer basis to enhance the finance and costing system.
The petitioner further argued that, in accordance with the IT Act, he could not be held liable for the alleged offence committed by the company or its employees. Additionally, the complaint failed to specify any overt act by the petitioner, nor did it mention his responsibility for any actions attracting penal consequences or his involvement in the daily affairs of the company.
Held
The HC allowed the petition, thereby quashing and setting aside the order, taking cognisance against the petitioner. It was held that since the petitioner was not an employee of HEC, he had no control over the company’s affairs, including tax deductions.
The HC ruled that the petitioner did not fit the definitions of ‘assessee,’ ‘Principal Officer,’ or ‘employee,’ and it could not be said that he was involved in HEC’s management. It was further noted that the complaint lacked any specific allegations or evidence that the petitioner was responsible for the acts leading to penal consequences or that he was involved in the daily affairs of the company.
Citing a similar case where the issuance of summons and process against the petitioner was quashed, the HC concluded that there was no material to summon the petitioner in the present case.
Our Analysis
The case establishes a significant precedent, clarifying that financial advisors cannot be prosecuted for a company’s TDS payment defaults. The HC recognised that financial advisors, being independent consultants, cannot be held vicariously liable for the company’s actions. However, the HC’s analysis lacked comprehensiveness. For instance, the HC merely stated that the petitioner does not meet the definitions of ‘assessee,’ Principal Officer,’ or ‘employee.’ This raises questions about the criteria for designating professionals as independent consultants.
Furthermore, the HC did not address why financial advisors are not considered connected to the company’s management. Could this be solely because they are independent consultants? If so, what standards define an independent consultant? A more thorough examination of these aspects, particularly independent consultants and vicarious liability would have provided clarity not just for financial advisors but also for other professionals associated with companies in roles that do not strictly fall within employee parameters.
End Note
[i] 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1549.
Authored by Shivam Mishra, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.