<?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>2003 (3) TMI 674 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161278</link>
    <description>Section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act permitted search and raid action where the authority had recorded reasons to suspect tax evasion, and the Court treated that recorded satisfaction as sufficient without re-testing the adequacy of the material. The Commissioner&#039;s written reasons, supported by material suggesting paper transactions and inter-State sale patterns, justified the search. Temporary sealing of the business premises during the raid was also upheld because the provision expressly authorised sealing or breaking open of doors, lockers, safes and similar places for the duration of the search. The objections of arbitrariness, lack of material and procedural unfairness were rejected on the facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:13:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=342495" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 674 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161278</link>
      <description>Section 45 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act permitted search and raid action where the authority had recorded reasons to suspect tax evasion, and the Court treated that recorded satisfaction as sufficient without re-testing the adequacy of the material. The Commissioner&#039;s written reasons, supported by material suggesting paper transactions and inter-State sale patterns, justified the search. Temporary sealing of the business premises during the raid was also upheld because the provision expressly authorised sealing or breaking open of doors, lockers, safes and similar places for the duration of the search. The objections of arbitrariness, lack of material and procedural unfairness were rejected on the facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>