Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appeal dismissed, search deemed unauthorized. Writ application maintainable, interim orders vacated.

        State of West Bengal and Others Versus Sarda & Sons

        State of West Bengal and Others Versus Sarda & Sons - [1977] 40 STC 419 (Cal) Issues involved:

        1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by the Bureau of Investigation.
        2. Validity of the notice issued under section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
        3. Competence and jurisdiction of the Bureau officers to conduct search and seizure.
        4. Retention of seized documents beyond the statutory period.
        5. Requirement of communication of reasons for retention and extension of time for retaining the documents.
        6. Maintainability of the writ application given the availability of alternative remedies and alleged delay.

        Issue-wise detailed analysis:

        1. Legality of the search and seizure conducted by the Bureau of Investigation:

        The firm alleged that the search and seizure conducted on 10th January, 1973, by the Bureau of Investigation was illegal, unauthorized, void, baseless, and mala fide. The firm contended that the officers of the Bureau had no power under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, to enter and search the business premises and seize records. The trial court ruled that the officers of the Bureau ceased to be officers under the said Act by reason of their appointment in the Bureau, making the seizure illegal and without jurisdiction. However, a subsequent Bench decision in State of West Bengal v. Narayana held that the Bureau was a statutory authority and an integral part of the Commercial Tax Directorate, validating the search and seizure.

        2. Validity of the notice issued under section 14(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941:

        The firm received a notice dated 4th April, 1973, under section 14(1) of the said Act, asking it to appear before the Commercial Tax Officer with all relevant documents. The firm contended that the notice was illegal, void, and without jurisdiction as no specific period for the production of accounts was mentioned, and there were no allegations of tax evasion. The trial court held that the notice was issued without proper application of mind and was thus invalid.

        3. Competence and jurisdiction of the Bureau officers to conduct search and seizure:

        The trial court initially ruled that the Bureau officers were not entitled to exercise the powers of Commercial Tax Directorate officers under the said Act. However, the subsequent Bench decision clarified that the Bureau officers were within the Tax Directorate and had the powers of search and seizure, making their actions valid and warranted by law.

        4. Retention of seized documents beyond the statutory period:

        The firm argued that the retention of documents beyond the statutory period of 21 days (or 42 days if extended) was unauthorized and illegal. The trial court agreed, stating that the documents should have been returned after the statutory period expired. The retention of documents beyond the statutory period without proper sanction was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction.

        5. Requirement of communication of reasons for retention and extension of time for retaining the documents:

        The firm contended that the reasons for retaining the documents beyond the statutory period were not communicated, violating principles of natural justice. The court upheld this contention, stating that recording and communicating reasons were mandatory under the law. The non-communication of reasons was deemed fatal to the validity of the retention, rendering the action unauthorized, void, and illegal.

        6. Maintainability of the writ application given the availability of alternative remedies and alleged delay:

        The revenue argued that the writ application should not have been entertained due to the availability of alternative remedies and alleged delay by the firm. The court rejected this argument, noting that the firm moved the application promptly and was not informed about the sanction extending the retention period. The court held that the application was maintainable as the impugned order was unauthorized, void, and without jurisdiction.

        Conclusion:

        The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld. The search and seizure were deemed unauthorized and illegal due to the non-communication of reasons for retention and the expiry of the statutory period. The writ application was held to be maintainable, and all interim orders were vacated.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found