<?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>2007 (9) TMI 714 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299628</link>
    <description>Cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code requires prima facie deceptive inducement and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. In a commercial dispute over non-supply of Form IX-C under the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, the complaint alleged essentially a statutory and contractual grievance, not false representation or intention to cause wrongful loss or gain. Where the statute provided a remedy for non-receipt of the form and civil remedies were also available, criminal proceedings could not be used to convert the dispute into cheating. The complaint was therefore found not to disclose the offence, and the cognizance order was liable to be interfered with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2021 17:10:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 714 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299628</link>
      <description>Cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code requires prima facie deceptive inducement and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. In a commercial dispute over non-supply of Form IX-C under the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, the complaint alleged essentially a statutory and contractual grievance, not false representation or intention to cause wrongful loss or gain. Where the statute provided a remedy for non-receipt of the form and civil remedies were also available, criminal proceedings could not be used to convert the dispute into cheating. The complaint was therefore found not to disclose the offence, and the cognizance order was liable to be interfered with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>