<?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>1962 (9) TMI 42 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128733</link>
    <description>Snatching account books from a sales tax officer during a lawful inspection was held to amount to force and criminal force because the act caused a jerk to the officer&#039;s hand and interfered with his physical control of the documents. The conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustained. The Court also held that prior sanction under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was not required where the facts disclosed the graver general offence under the Penal Code, even though they also amounted to a statutory obstruction offence. Proceeding under the general law was not colourable, and the prosecution was valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (9) TMI 42 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128733</link>
      <description>Snatching account books from a sales tax officer during a lawful inspection was held to amount to force and criminal force because the act caused a jerk to the officer&#039;s hand and interfered with his physical control of the documents. The conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustained. The Court also held that prior sanction under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1947 was not required where the facts disclosed the graver general offence under the Penal Code, even though they also amounted to a statutory obstruction offence. Proceeding under the general law was not colourable, and the prosecution was valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128733</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>