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 Section 270(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935 applied to the acts complained of so as to require the consent of the Governor-General before proceedings could be instituted, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected.
Analysis: The plaint itself alleged that the defendants were Income Tax Officers who, while purporting to act in the discharge of their official functions and under superior orders, entered the plaintiff's premises and removed account books. The decisive question was not the motive attributed to them, but whether the acts complained of were sufficiently connected with their official character and purported execution of duty. On the allegations pleaded, the acts were of the kind contemplated by Section 270(1), and the absence of the Governor-General's consent attracted the statutory bar. That consequence could be decided at the preliminary stage on the pleadings themselves.
Conclusion: Section 270(1) applied, the requisite consent had not been obtained, and the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d).
Ratio Decidendi: Where the plaint alleges that public officers acted, or purported to act, in execution of official duty, the statutory protection attached to such acts may be invoked at the threshold, and the suit cannot proceed without the required consent.
TaxTMI 
