Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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

        <h1>Tribunal upholds search & seizure under Sales Tax Act, 1994. Valid reasons cited. Witness sufficiency noted.</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the application challenging the search and seizure of the applicant's books of accounts, finding the actions compliant with the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the search and seizure of the applicant's books of accounts.2. Compliance with procedural requirements for search and seizure under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.3. Validity of the recorded reasons for the search and seizure.4. Adequacy of witness presence during the search and seizure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Search and Seizure of the Applicant's Books of Accounts:The applicant, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, challenged the search and seizure of its books of accounts conducted on March 1, 1996. The applicant argued that the search and seizure were conducted without proper grounds and that the officers forcibly took out the books of accounts and documents from the residence of one of the managers, Shri Krishna Kumar Saraogi, in his absence. The applicant contended that the officers threatened the female members of Shri Saraogi's family and prepared a common seizure receipt for the applicant and Shri Saraogi, which the applicant claimed was improper.2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Search and Seizure under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994:The respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, stated that the search was conducted based on specific information that the books of accounts were being kept at 165, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Calcutta-7, and not at the applicant's registered place of business. The respondents argued that the search and seizure were conducted in the presence of a witness, Shri L.K. Agarwal, and that the discrepancies found in the books of accounts justified the seizure. The respondents also denied any threat to the female members of Shri Saraogi's family and asserted that the seizure was conducted in accordance with the law, with reasons for the seizure being recorded in writing prior to the action.3. Validity of the Recorded Reasons for the Search and Seizure:The applicant's counsel, Mr. M.L. Bhattacharya, argued that the recorded reasons for the search and seizure were vague and did not provide specific grounds for suspicion of tax evasion. He contended that the reasons were self-contradictory and that the seizure receipt was prepared after the seizure had already taken place, indicating a procedural lapse. In response, the respondents' counsel, Mr. K.K. Saha, argued that the reasons recorded indicated a valid suspicion of tax evasion based on the discrepancies found in the books of accounts. He cited legal precedents to support the argument that possession for inspection is not equivalent to seizure and that the seizure was conducted after proper recording of reasons.4. Adequacy of Witness Presence During the Search and Seizure:The applicant argued that the seizure receipt did not bear the signature of any witness and that the absence of the witness's address made it impossible to verify the witness's independence. The respondents countered that the search and seizure were witnessed by Shri L.K. Agarwal, whose signature was on the recorded reasons and the seizure receipt. They argued that the presence of one witness, rather than two, was sufficient compliance with the statute, and that the witness's address was not crucial as he was an employee of the applicant and known to them.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the search and seizure were conducted in compliance with the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The Tribunal found that the recorded reasons for the search and seizure were valid and based on specific discrepancies in the books of accounts. The Tribunal also held that the presence of one witness was adequate compliance with the statute and that the absence of the witness's address did not invalidate the seizure. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found