TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Sets Aside Order; Remands Case for Reconsideration, Rejects Wikipedia as Source; Orders Fair Hearing Opportunity.</h1> <h3>United Telecoms Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Customs Airport And Air Cargo Bengaluru, The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs Bengaluru.</h3> United Telecoms Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Customs Airport And Air Cargo Bengaluru, The Deputy Commissioner Of Customs Bengaluru. - ... Issues:Quashing of Order-in-original, Reliance on Wikipedia information, Consideration of petitioner's contentions, Setting aside of impugned order, Remitting matter back to respondent for reconsideration, Opportunity for additional pleadingsAnalysis:The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned Order-in-original passed by the respondents and other reliefs. The petitioner's counsel argued that the reliance on information from Wikipedia by the respondent was impermissible in law, citing judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner contended that despite raising various defenses and objections, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the petitioner's submissions. The petitioner urged the court to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the law.The respondents' counsel opposed the petition, claiming no merit in the petitioner's arguments. The court noted that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order both relied on information from Wikipedia, which was deemed impermissible in law based on previous judgments. Additionally, the court observed that the respondent did not consider the petitioner's contentions and documents, merely confirming the demand mechanically. Consequently, the court found grounds to interfere in the matter.In the final order, the court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration in compliance with the law. The court also granted the petitioner liberty to submit additional pleadings and documents, emphasizing that the respondent must provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a chance for a personal hearing. The court directed the respondent to proceed further in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referenced earlier.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
