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, upon proof that a conveyance was used for transporting contraband intoxicant and its owner was implicated in the offence, the Magistrate was bound under Sections 63 and 64 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 to order confiscation of the conveyance or offer the owner an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.
Analysis: The liability to confiscation of a conveyance under Section 63 arose only when the conveyance was used for carrying the contraband and the owner was implicated in the offence. Once those conditions were established, the scheme and purpose of Sections 63 and 64 showed that the legislature intended effective suppression of illicit trade in intoxicants. In that context, the expression "shall be liable to confiscation" was not merely permissive, and the word "may" in Section 64(1) could not be read in isolation. Applying a contextual and purposive construction, the Court held that the Magistrate's discretion was confined to choosing between the two alternatives provided by the section.
Conclusion: The Magistrate was required to proceed either with confiscation of the conveyance or with an order allowing fine in lieu of confiscation; he could not ignore both alternatives. The clarified legal position was against the respondent and in favour of the Revenue on the statutory interpretation issue.
Final Conclusion: The decision settled that, once the statutory conditions for confiscation are proved under the Excise Act, the court must act within the limited alternatives prescribed by the confiscation provision so that the anti-smuggling object of the statute is not defeated.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a conveyance incurs liability to confiscation under the statutory conditions, the word "may" in the confiscation provision is construed as mandatory in context, restricting the authority to the statutory alternatives of confiscation or fine in lieu thereof.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
