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 the FIR and consequent proceedings against Customs were liable to be quashed on the ground that the police lacked authority to initiate proceedings in respect of acts done in discharge of official duty and that the officers were protected under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The application was founded on the premise that the applicants, being Customs officials, had acted in the course of their official functions in relation to search, seizure and confiscation proceedings already undertaken by the Customs authorities. The Court noted that where the acts complained of were connected with discharge of official duty and were pursued under the Customs law framework, prosecution against the officers could not be sustained. Reliance was placed on the statutory protection available under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, which bars legal proceedings for acts done or intended to be done in good faith in pursuance of the Act or the rules or regulations.
Conclusion: The FIR and all consequential proceedings were held not sustainable against the applicants and were quashed.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings against the Customs officials were terminated on the basis of statutory immunity and the absence of authority to prosecute them for acts undertaken in the course of their official duties.
Ratio Decidendi: Where Customs officers act in discharge of official functions under the Customs Act, 1962, legal proceedings for such acts are barred by the statutory protection contained in Section 155, and an FIR founded on such conduct is liable to be quashed.
TaxTMI 
