<?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>2025 (9) TMI 1460 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778971</link>
    <description>Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 permits entry, search and seizure only on recorded reasons to believe based on information or personal knowledge, and it incorporates CrPC safeguards, including warrant procedure and independent respectable witnesses. The Court held that a warehouse or other business premises falls within &quot;premises&quot; under Section 2(n), but that commercial access during business hours does not dispense with statutory safeguards. On the facts, no warrant was obtained, no reasons were recorded, and the witness requirement was not met, so the search, seizure, and consequential notices and orders were illegal and unsustainable; a packaging-declaration defect was treated as merely technical and could not cure the illegality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 08:26:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1460 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778971</link>
      <description>Section 15 of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 permits entry, search and seizure only on recorded reasons to believe based on information or personal knowledge, and it incorporates CrPC safeguards, including warrant procedure and independent respectable witnesses. The Court held that a warehouse or other business premises falls within &quot;premises&quot; under Section 2(n), but that commercial access during business hours does not dispense with statutory safeguards. On the facts, no warrant was obtained, no reasons were recorded, and the witness requirement was not met, so the search, seizure, and consequential notices and orders were illegal and unsustainable; a packaging-declaration defect was treated as merely technical and could not cure the illegality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>