Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of HC dismissed the writ petition and held it premature and not maintainable, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy under Section 107 rather than relief under Article 226. The court recorded that where a proper officer (not below Joint Commissioner) has reasons to believe under Section 67 of suppression or evasion, he may inspect, search and, under Section 69, arrest, and seize documents; thereafter a notice under Section 73 (three-year limitation) or Section 74 (five-year limitation) may be issued. The court refused to examine the correctness of issuance of a Section 74 notice at writ stage, leaving the limitation and merits to the adjudicatory authority; observations of the HC are not to influence the proper officer.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
