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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S., allowed the bail application of A v. State in an economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, a non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, with only partial examination of three out of ten witnesses and no delay attributable to the accused. Noting the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and the procedural safeguard against undue trial delay, as well as the absence of recorded reasons by the trial court justifying continued incarceration, HC invoked Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, subject to usual conditions.
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S., allowed the bail application of A v. State in an economic offence under Section 132(1)(b)(c)(f)(l) of the 2017 Act, a non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate. The petitioner had been in custody since 03.06.2024 and cognizance was taken on 01.02.2025, with only partial examination of three out of ten witnesses and no delay attributable to the accused. Noting the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and the procedural safeguard against undue trial delay, as well as the absence of recorded reasons by the trial court justifying continued incarceration, HC invoked Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. and directed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, subject to usual conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
