TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Revenue was bound to implement the Tribunal's earlier order directing release of the seized gold notwithstanding pendency of a reference application before the High Court and absence of any stay order.
Analysis: Mere filing of a reference application or appeal does not operate as a stay of the Tribunal's order. In the absence of any stay from the higher court, the Tribunal's direction remained operative and was required to be implemented. The Tribunal also noted its power under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules to issue consequential directions to secure compliance with its orders.
Conclusion: The Revenue was directed to give consequential relief to the applicant within one month and comply with the earlier order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
