Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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>Supreme Court reinstates convictions for illegal silver export under various acts.</h1> The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal by the High Court and the Sessions Judge, reinstating the trial Magistrate's conviction. The respondents were ... Exports — `Preparation' and `attempt' — Distinction between - `Attempt' - Evidence — Fact inissue — Circumstantial evidence — Words and phrases - Interpretation — Economic offence and smuggling Issues Involved:1. Violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.2. Violation of Exports (Control) Order No. 1 of 1968.3. Contravention of Customs Act, 1962.4. Definition and determination of 'attempt' in the context of smuggling.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947:The respondents were charged with attempting to smuggle 43 silver ingots, weighing 1312.410 Kgs., valued at approximately Rs. 8 lakhs, in violation of Section 12(1), 23(1), and 23(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The trial Magistrate found the respondents guilty, but the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted them, concluding that the prosecution's evidence only showed preparation, not an attempt to export the silver. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that the circumstances clearly indicated an intention to export the silver, thereby constituting an attempt.2. Violation of Exports (Control) Order No. 1 of 1968:The respondents were also charged under the Exports (Control) Order No. 1/68 E.T.C., dated March 8, 1968, issued under Sections 3 and 4 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, punishable under Section 5 of the said Act. The trial court's conviction was overturned by the Sessions Judge, who ruled that the acts of the respondents were preparatory and not proximate enough to constitute an attempt. The Supreme Court reversed this, emphasizing that the acts of the respondents went beyond preparation and were proximate to the commission of the offence.3. Contravention of Customs Act, 1962:The respondents were charged under Sections 7, 8, 33, and 34 of the Customs Act, 1962, and were found guilty by the trial Magistrate. The Sessions Judge acquitted them, reasoning that the acts did not amount to an attempt. The Supreme Court held that the respondents' actions constituted an attempt under Section 135(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they had taken deliberate steps towards exporting the silver.4. Definition and Determination of 'Attempt':The core issue was whether the respondents' actions constituted an 'attempt' to export silver. The Supreme Court elaborated on the concept of 'attempt,' stating that it begins where preparation ends. An act is considered an attempt if it is a deliberate step towards the commission of the offence and is reasonably proximate to its completion. The Court cited various legal definitions and precedents to support this interpretation. The Court concluded that the respondents' actions, including transporting the silver to a creek and beginning to unload it, were proximate enough to constitute an attempt to export.Conclusion:The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal by the High Court and the Sessions Judge, reinstating the trial Magistrate's conviction. The respondents were found guilty of attempting to export silver in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, and the Customs Act. The Court sentenced respondent 1 to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000, and respondents 2 and 3 to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each.Separate Judgment by Chinnappa Reddy, J.:Chinnappa Reddy, J., concurred with the conclusion but added a detailed discussion on the nature of 'attempt.' He emphasized the difficulty in distinguishing between preparation and perpetration and cited various legal definitions and cases to elucidate the concept. He concluded that the respondents' actions were indicative of an intention to export the silver, thereby constituting an attempt.Final Orders:The appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and the respondents were convicted and sentenced as detailed above.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found