TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 alteration and reprinting of the MRP on a wrapper before packing the contents is prohibited by Rule 23(7) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and whether the complaint and notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 disclosed any offence so as to warrant continuation of the proceedings.
Analysis: Rule 23(7) prohibits alteration of the price on a wrapper once it has been printed and used for packing. The provision does not bar correction or reprinting before the package is sealed or the contents are packed. The record showed that the revised MRP was printed on unused packing material before dispatch and that the revised price remained the same. On that basis, the allegation that the petitioner had altered the wrapper after packing was not made out. The Court also noted that the statutory scheme under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, including Sections 33 and 39, could not be invoked on facts that did not disclose any contravention. Since the alleged conduct was not shown to be an offence, the compounding objection did not survive.
Conclusion: The complaint and the notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were quashed as the charges were groundless, and the petitioner succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings could not continue because the alleged pre-packing reprinting of the same MRP did not amount to a statutory violation.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 23(7) forbids alteration of price only after a wrapper has been printed and used for packing; pre-packing reprinting of the same declaration does not constitute an offence in the absence of a proved contravention.
TaxTMI 
