Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court examined the interpretation of "reasons to believe" u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding seizure of goods. A previous case had left the interpretation open for examination in other cases. A circular stipulated that at the time of seizure, a Panchnama should clearly mention the reasons to believe the goods are liable for confiscation. There was a dispute over whether the driver produced relevant documents at the time of seizure. The petitioner admitted that documents were produced later at the customs office, implying the driver did not carry them initially. An e-way bill generated shortly before the seizure showed alleged discrepancies. However, under Article 226, the court cannot examine disputed issues. The petitioner failed to make out a case, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
The court examined the interpretation of "reasons to believe" u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding seizure of goods. A previous case had left the interpretation open for examination in other cases. A circular stipulated that at the time of seizure, a Panchnama should clearly mention the reasons to believe the goods are liable for confiscation. There was a dispute over whether the driver produced relevant documents at the time of seizure. The petitioner admitted that documents were produced later at the customs office, implying the driver did not carry them initially. An e-way bill generated shortly before the seizure showed alleged discrepancies. However, under Article 226, the court cannot examine disputed issues. The petitioner failed to make out a case, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
