TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 detention order under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 was liable to be set aside for want of a real possibility of release on bail, alleged non-supply of relied upon materials, and violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The detention order was passed with recorded awareness that the detenue was in judicial custody and that his bail application had been rejected. The detaining authority also recorded its assessment that there existed a likelihood of release and a further likelihood of prejudicial activities if released. The materials relied upon were stated to have been furnished to the detenue, including the detention order, grounds, and supporting documents, and the detenue acknowledged receipt but did not submit any representation. The Court found that the safeguards under Article 22(5) were complied with and that the subjective satisfaction was formed after consideration of relevant materials. The challenge based on alleged non-connection with the specific seizure incident was rejected in view of the finding that the detenue was involved in continuing smuggling ies.
Conclusion: The detention order was held valid and was not liable to be interfered with.
TaxTMI 
