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: (i) Whether the proclamation and attachment proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 87(1) and Section 87(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. (ii) Whether the remedy under Section 88(6-D) of the Criminal Procedure Code barred the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether the proclamation and attachment proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 87(1) and Section 87(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Analysis: The statutory conditions for issuing proclamation required a prior judicial satisfaction that the accused had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant could not be executed. The record showed simultaneous issuance of warrant and proclamation, which negatived such satisfaction. The publication requirements under Section 87(2) were also not fully complied with, as the proclamation was not shown to have been affixed at all places required by the provision. The rule that a power must be exercised only in the manner prescribed was treated as controlling, and the constitutional requirement of procedure established by law reinforced that conclusion.
Conclusion: The proclamation and attachment proceedings were illegal and stood vitiated for non-compliance with Section 87(1) and Section 87(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Issue (ii): Whether the remedy under Section 88(6-D) of the Criminal Procedure Code barred the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.
Analysis: The remedy of a civil suit under Section 88(6-D) was treated as merely alternative and not exclusive. It did not take away the High Court's revisional or inherent jurisdiction, and an order made in breach of the prescribed procedure could still be examined in revision.
Conclusion: Section 88(6-D) did not bar the High Court from exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal from the earlier stage in accordance with law, without any finding on the merits of the claimant's title.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific mode for taking coercive procedural steps, strict compliance is mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates the resultant orders; an alternative statutory remedy does not by itself oust revisional jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
