Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Petition for discharge u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed in offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 relating to improperly imported gold bars. At charge framing stage, court to prima facie consider sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused, not appreciate evidence for conviction. While considering discharge, court not to deeply evaluate probative value but form presumptive opinion on factual ingredients constituting alleged offence without roving inquiry or weighing evidence as in trial. Gold seized from pillion rider's possession, petitioner's involvement matter for trial. Sanction order challenged on ground of not considering evidence nature, role and mens rea, but petitioner neither specified facts not considered nor showed apparent error. No evidence produced to enable Magistrate find charge groundless. Dismissal of discharge petition cannot be faulted, revision devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.
Petition for discharge u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed in offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 relating to improperly imported gold bars. At charge framing stage, court to prima facie consider sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused, not appreciate evidence for conviction. While considering discharge, court not to deeply evaluate probative value but form presumptive opinion on factual ingredients constituting alleged offence without roving inquiry or weighing evidence as in trial. Gold seized from pillion rider's possession, petitioner's involvement matter for trial. Sanction order challenged on ground of not considering evidence nature, role and mens rea, but petitioner neither specified facts not considered nor showed apparent error. No evidence produced to enable Magistrate find charge groundless. Dismissal of discharge petition cannot be faulted, revision devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
