<?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>2019 (5) TMI 1215 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380487</link>
    <description>Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits summoning a witness only when the evidence is necessary for a just decision. In this cheque dishonour matter, the proposed Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax was not shown to be essential, because the relevant returns were already on record, the cheque transaction and issuance were undisputed, and the application did not demonstrate how the testimony would establish the defence or the issue of legally enforceable liability. The timing of the request, when the case was listed for arguments, also suggested delay rather than necessity. The refusal to summon the witness was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2019 07:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=572296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1215 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380487</link>
      <description>Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits summoning a witness only when the evidence is necessary for a just decision. In this cheque dishonour matter, the proposed Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax was not shown to be essential, because the relevant returns were already on record, the cheque transaction and issuance were undisputed, and the application did not demonstrate how the testimony would establish the defence or the issue of legally enforceable liability. The timing of the request, when the case was listed for arguments, also suggested delay rather than necessity. The refusal to summon the witness was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>