<?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>2004 (11) TMI 569 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173504</link>
    <description>Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in Andhra Pradesh, was unconstitutional because it authorised inspection, entry, seizure and impounding of documents in private or bank custody without prior reasonable basis, recorded satisfaction, clear safeguards or guiding standards. The Court found the power disproportionately intrusive, arbitrary and the product of excessive delegation, especially as the Act already contained other mechanisms to secure stamp revenue. The absence of objective limits on access to confidential documents violated privacy and rendered the provision inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21. The amended section was therefore unenforceable, and the constitutional challenge succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 569 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173504</link>
      <description>Section 73 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in Andhra Pradesh, was unconstitutional because it authorised inspection, entry, seizure and impounding of documents in private or bank custody without prior reasonable basis, recorded satisfaction, clear safeguards or guiding standards. The Court found the power disproportionately intrusive, arbitrary and the product of excessive delegation, especially as the Act already contained other mechanisms to secure stamp revenue. The absence of objective limits on access to confidential documents violated privacy and rendered the provision inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21. The amended section was therefore unenforceable, and the constitutional challenge succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>