Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court authorizes Assam Police seizure, directs Customs for smuggling investigation. Coordination key for multi-statute cases.</h1> <h3>M/s SANGTEI ENTERPRISE AND ANR., SRI ZOSANGPUII Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS., THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER</h3> M/s SANGTEI ENTERPRISE AND ANR., SRI ZOSANGPUII Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS., THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THE DY. ... Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Assam Police in seizing trucks and goods suspected of tax evasion and forgery.2. Applicability of Indian Penal Code (IPC) versus special statutes like the Customs Act and GST Acts.3. Whether the police can investigate offences under special statutes.4. The role of different investigative agencies in cases involving multiple statutes.5. The legality and scope of police actions in the context of alleged smuggling and forgery.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Assam Police in Seizing Trucks and Goods Suspected of Tax Evasion and Forgery:The petitioners, primarily proprietorship firms dealing in areca nuts, challenged the seizure of their trucks by Assam Police, arguing the police acted without jurisdiction. The police had detained the trucks based on information about improper documentation and possible smuggling. The court acknowledged that the initial seizure by the police was not without authority as the police acted on credible information and had jurisdiction under Section 102(1) CrPC to seize any property suspected to be involved in an offence.2. Applicability of Indian Penal Code (IPC) Versus Special Statutes Like the Customs Act and GST Acts:The court examined whether the police could investigate offences under the IPC when the offences might also fall under special statutes like the Customs Act or GST Acts. The petitioners argued that offences under these special statutes should be investigated by the respective authorities. The court held that while the Customs Act and GST Acts are comprehensive and self-contained, they do not preclude the applicability of the IPC. Hence, the police can investigate offences under the IPC even if they are also offences under special statutes.3. Whether the Police Can Investigate Offences Under Special Statutes:The court clarified that the police have the jurisdiction to investigate offences under the IPC, even if these offences overlap with special statutes. However, the police should not conduct a roving or fishing enquiry. In this case, the police were investigating forgery and use of forged documents, which are offences under the IPC. The court noted that if the primary offence is identified as smuggling under the Customs Act, the investigation should be handed over to the Customs authorities.4. The Role of Different Investigative Agencies in Cases Involving Multiple Statutes:The court emphasized the need for coordination among different investigative agencies when multiple offences under different statutes are involved. It held that while the police can investigate IPC offences, they should hand over the investigation to the appropriate authorities if new offences under special statutes are revealed. This ensures that investigations are not prolonged unnecessarily and that the rights of the accused are protected.5. The Legality and Scope of Police Actions in the Context of Alleged Smuggling and Forgery:The court observed that the police had acted on credible information and had initially detained the trucks for verification of tax documents. However, subsequent investigations revealed that the goods might be smuggled from Myanmar, making the Customs Act applicable. The court directed that the investigation of the alleged smuggling should be handed over to the Customs authorities, as they are the proper authorities to investigate such offences. The police can assist the Customs authorities if needed.Conclusion:The court held that the Assam Police had the authority to initially seize the trucks and goods based on credible information. However, since the primary offence appeared to be smuggling under the Customs Act, the investigation should be handed over to the Customs authorities. The police can investigate IPC offences but should not conduct a roving enquiry and should coordinate with other investigative agencies to ensure a fair and expeditious investigation. The petitions were disposed of with these observations and directions.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found