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...
The case pertains to the prohibition on import and confiscation of seven drawings by renowned artists under Customs Notification No. 1/1964, deeming them obscene. The court held that the ability to communicate ideas through art is a legitimate human endeavour and cannot be controlled based on acceptability to authorities. Vesting obscenity determination powers in customs authorities risks arbitrary state behaviour imperilling fundamental freedoms. The impugned order ignored relevant considerations like expert opinions, artistic value, contemporary standards, and legal precedents, relying instead on individualized morality standards, personal prejudices, and frivolous grounds. Relegating the petitioner to departmental appeals risked destruction of the valuable artworks. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed, upholding artistic expression and freedom of speech.
The case pertains to the prohibition on import and confiscation of seven drawings by renowned artists under Customs Notification No. 1/1964, deeming them obscene. The court held that the ability to communicate ideas through art is a legitimate human endeavour and cannot be controlled based on acceptability to authorities. Vesting obscenity determination powers in customs authorities risks arbitrary state behaviour imperilling fundamental freedoms. The impugned order ignored relevant considerations like expert opinions, artistic value, contemporary standards, and legal precedents, relying instead on individualized morality standards, personal prejudices, and frivolous grounds. Relegating the petitioner to departmental appeals risked destruction of the valuable artworks. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed, upholding artistic expression and freedom of speech.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
