<?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>1955 (8) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276663</link>
    <description>An authority exercising statutory powers in sales tax assessment and collection may be treated as a Revenue Court for section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, where it can require documents, summon witnesses, take affidavits and issue commissions, and ordinary court jurisdiction is excluded. On that basis, cognizance of a section 471 IPC offence based on a forged document produced before the Sales Tax Officer required a written complaint by that officer or a superior court. Proceedings on the forgery-linked charge were therefore quashed for want of the statutory complaint, while the separate cheating charge under section 420 IPC was not barred by section 195 and could proceed independently.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:11:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (8) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276663</link>
      <description>An authority exercising statutory powers in sales tax assessment and collection may be treated as a Revenue Court for section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, where it can require documents, summon witnesses, take affidavits and issue commissions, and ordinary court jurisdiction is excluded. On that basis, cognizance of a section 471 IPC offence based on a forged document produced before the Sales Tax Officer required a written complaint by that officer or a superior court. Proceedings on the forgery-linked charge were therefore quashed for want of the statutory complaint, while the separate cheating charge under section 420 IPC was not barred by section 195 and could proceed independently.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>