Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
