Nagamohan Das, J.

1. In these three petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 49/2013, 77/2013 and 78/2013 on the file of Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore City.

2. The parties are same in all the three petitions. The respondent filed three cases before the Economic Offences Court against the petitioners for the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 for the offences punishable under Section 276-B read with Section 278-B of Income Tax Act.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered company engaged in the business of operating passenger air lines in India. Petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman and Managing Director of petitioner No. 1 company responding for the day-to-day business of the company. On 18.03.2011 respondent - Income Tax Department conducted a survey on the premises of petitioner No. 1 under Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the I.T. Act'). During the course of survey the respondent department noticed from the records available in the premises of petitioner No. 1 that they have deducted tax at source and failed to remit the same to the Government account for the financial years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 to the tune of Rs.400,56,08,659/- (Four hundred crores fifty six lakhs eight thousand six hundred fifty nine only). During the course of verification of the records, at the time of survey and in the subsequent proceedings after the survey it was detected that the petitioner No. 1 company had deducted TDS on various payments and failed to remit the same to the Government accounts. Petitioner No. 1 company, its principal officer and the authorized representatives admitted the liability of TDS and failed to pay the same.

4. The Assessing Officer passed an order on 30.12.2011 under Section 201(1) and 201(1-A) of the I.T. Act treating petitioner No. 1 company as an assessee in default and levied interest for not remitting the TDS within the stipulated time and raised a demand. Petitioner No. 1 company being aggrieved by the order of assessing authority preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.02.2012 confirming the order of assessing Officer. Further the petitioner No. 1 company filed second appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'ITAT'), Bangalore. The ITAT vide order dated 25.05.2012 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner No. 1 company, set aside the order of assessing officer and the Commissioner of appeals and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for reconsideration in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the petitioners. The respondent Income Tax Department being aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the ITAT approached this Court in ITA No. 164, 165 and 166/2012. Learned Single Judge of this Court granted an interim order of stay, staying the remand order passed by the ITAT in case Nos. 369- 371/Bang/2012.

5. In view of the stay order granted by this Court the Assessing Officer issued demand notice to the petitioners. Therefore the petitioners approached this Court in I.T.A. Nos. 239, 240 and 241/2012 challenging the order of ITAT remanding the matter and also the demand notice. This Court granted in interim order subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the demand.

6. When the matter stood at that stage the respondent income tax department, after obtaining sanction as required under law, filed three private complaints against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 276-B and 278-B of the I.T. Act in C.C. Nos. 49/2013, 77/2013 and 78/2013 on the file of Special Court (Economic Offences) Bangalore. The Special Court vide order dated 30.03.2013 had taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners, registered the cases and issued summons. Aggrieved by this order of the trial Court and the entire proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the same.

7. Learned Senior Counse