<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1960 (11) TMI 101 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128243</link>
    <description>Assault or use of criminal force against Sales Tax Officers could be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code without prior sanction under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, because the sales tax provision dealt only with obstruction to inspection, search or seizure and operated in a different field. The officers&#039; entry into the residential premises and inspection of books were treated as lawful on the basis of the delegation order and the proprietor&#039;s conduct, so the accused had no legal justification for ejecting them by force. The sentence for conviction under section 353 read with section 34 was enhanced, with substantive imprisonment for the principal accused and a higher fine for the others.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:03:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 101 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128243</link>
      <description>Assault or use of criminal force against Sales Tax Officers could be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code without prior sanction under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, because the sales tax provision dealt only with obstruction to inspection, search or seizure and operated in a different field. The officers&#039; entry into the residential premises and inspection of books were treated as lawful on the basis of the delegation order and the proprietor&#039;s conduct, so the accused had no legal justification for ejecting them by force. The sentence for conviction under section 353 read with section 34 was enhanced, with substantive imprisonment for the principal accused and a higher fine for the others.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>