TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the seizures made on 5 February 1990 were invalid for want of authority and jurisdiction in the officers who effected them.
Analysis: The challenge centred on the capacity in which the seizing officers acted. The receipts showed that the officers described themselves only as Commercial Tax Officers, North Circle, although the respondents relied on an asserted authorisation enabling them to exercise powers of Commercial Tax Officers of the Central Circle. The Tribunal held that, even assuming such authorisation existed, the officers did not disclose on the seizure receipts that they were acting in the higher capacity. Since a public officer exercising statutory power must indicate the capacity in which the power is being exercised, the description used on the seizure receipts was material. The presence of an Inspector as co-signatory did not cure the defect, because the respondents themselves treated the Commercial Tax Officers as the persons who effected the seizures and the Inspector's presence did not alter the capacity in which the seizure was made.
Conclusion: The seizures were invalid for want of authority and jurisdiction and were liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A seizure made under taxing statutes is invalid where the officer exercising the power does not disclose the statutory capacity in which he is authorised to act, and an undisclosed or unasserted delegated authority cannot be presumed to sustain the seizure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
