Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 96207 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A writ petition challenging search, seizure, suspension of registration, bank attachment and related proceedings was not entertained because the controversy had already moved to the final adjudication orders under the statute. Once those final orders were passed, the petitioners were required to pursue the appellate remedy, where the same grounds remained available. The Court also noted that no appeal could be treated as pending because the stated appeal had not satisfied the statutory pre-deposit requirement. In these circumstances, there was no basis to invoke writ jurisdiction again over the same subject matter, and the petition was dismissed with liberty to challenge the final orders in appeal.
A writ petition challenging search, seizure, suspension of registration, bank attachment and related proceedings was not entertained because the controversy had already moved to the final adjudication orders under the statute. Once those final orders were passed, the petitioners were required to pursue the appellate remedy, where the same grounds remained available. The Court also noted that no appeal could be treated as pending because the stated appeal had not satisfied the statutory pre-deposit requirement. In these circumstances, there was no basis to invoke writ jurisdiction again over the same subject matter, and the petition was dismissed with liberty to challenge the final orders in appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.