<?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>1978 (1) TMI 149 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151554</link>
    <description>Seizure of a dealer&#039;s account books under section 28 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a search and seizure, not a mere inspection, because the pleadings alleged a raid, search of the premises and cupboards, and seizure of books without the required safeguards. Those allegations were not properly controverted by a statement of objections or affidavits from officers with personal knowledge. As no compliance with the proviso to section 28(2) was shown before the search was undertaken, the officer&#039;s action could not be sustained. The seizure was therefore held illegal, and the dealer was entitled to return of the seized articles and copies or notes made from them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:29:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=168592" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (1) TMI 149 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151554</link>
      <description>Seizure of a dealer&#039;s account books under section 28 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was treated as a search and seizure, not a mere inspection, because the pleadings alleged a raid, search of the premises and cupboards, and seizure of books without the required safeguards. Those allegations were not properly controverted by a statement of objections or affidavits from officers with personal knowledge. As no compliance with the proviso to section 28(2) was shown before the search was undertaken, the officer&#039;s action could not be sustained. The seizure was therefore held illegal, and the dealer was entitled to return of the seized articles and copies or notes made from them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=151554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>