Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the time spent in obtaining consent or sanction could be excluded under Section 470(3) of the Code when the governing statutes did not require prior sanction for institution of the prosecution.
Analysis: Section 470(3) permits exclusion of time required for obtaining consent or sanction only where such previous consent or sanction is required by the law under which the prosecution is launched. The relevant provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 merely prescribe who may lodge a complaint and do not make prior sanction a condition precedent for cognizance. Since no statutory requirement of prior sanction existed, the period consumed in seeking it could not be excluded while computing limitation.
Conclusion: The complaint was filed beyond the prescribed limitation and cognizance could not validly have been taken; the objection to limitation succeeded in favour of the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: Exclusion under Section 470(3) of the Code is available only where prior consent or sanction is legally required for the institution of the prosecution; where no such requirement exists, the time spent in obtaining sanction cannot be excluded for limitation purposes.