Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The Delhi High Court upheld the order quashing of the disciplinary proceedings against the Regional Director (NR) of ROC, emphasizing the distinction between executive and quasi-judicial functions under the Act. The court held that an authority's act can be quasi-judicial even without two competing parties, considering factors like nature of rights affected. Referring to relevant case law, the court highlighted the need for objective criteria and consideration of objections for a function to be quasi-judicial. The court noted the elaborate procedure under Rule 30 for shifting applications, requiring examination of objections and reports from RoCs. Despite allegations of misconduct, the court found no fault in the respondent's approval of shifting applications, given reliance on information provided and lack of alerts about pending inspections. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the respondent's heavy workload and lack of evidence against other officers involved.
The Delhi High Court upheld the order quashing of the disciplinary proceedings against the Regional Director (NR) of ROC, emphasizing the distinction between executive and quasi-judicial functions under the Act. The court held that an authority's act can be quasi-judicial even without two competing parties, considering factors like nature of rights affected. Referring to relevant case law, the court highlighted the need for objective criteria and consideration of objections for a function to be quasi-judicial. The court noted the elaborate procedure under Rule 30 for shifting applications, requiring examination of objections and reports from RoCs. Despite allegations of misconduct, the court found no fault in the respondent's approval of shifting applications, given reliance on information provided and lack of alerts about pending inspections. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the respondent's heavy workload and lack of evidence against other officers involved.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
