1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Court quashes orders, allows refund for tobacco dealer. Confiscation overturned, penalties reduced.</h1> The court quashed the orders of the respondents, allowing the petitioner, a licensed tobacco dealer, to claim a refund of the deposited amount without ... Confiscations of tobacco Issues:1. Application for writ of certiorari to quash order of respondents.2. Confiscation of tobacco consignment due to alleged delay in transit.3. Misuse of sale note and penalty imposition.4. Revision application outcomes for both petitioner and tempo owner.5. Alleged delay in transport and validity of sale note.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a licensed tobacco dealer, sought a writ to quash the order of confiscation of tobacco consignment by the authorities due to alleged delay in transit. The order was confirmed and modified by different respondents through adjudication and appeals.2. The petitioner transported tobacco under a sale note but faced delays due to vehicle issues, leading to confiscation of goods by authorities citing transit delay. Despite the petitioner's explanation, the initial order imposed a penalty and confiscated the tobacco, which was later reduced on revision.3. The authorities acknowledged no misuse of the sale note by the petitioner, but discrepancies in the tobacco packages were noted. The crucial question of misuse was resolved in favor of the petitioner, leading to a reduction in the penalty imposed.4. In a separate revision filed by the tempo owner, it was observed that there was a delay in transport rendering the sale note invalid, but no case of double transport was established. The revision application was allowed, indicating no misuse by the tempo owner as well.5. The judgment highlighted the absence of misuse of the sale note by both parties and questioned the alleged delay in transport. The validity of the sale note and the timing of reaching the destination were crucial factors in determining the confiscation of the tobacco consignment. Ultimately, the court quashed the orders of the respondents, allowing the petitioner to claim a refund of the deposited amount without costs, including an advocate fee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
