Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
The central issue was whether preventive seizure under Section 110(1) was jurisdictionally valid and supported by a "reason to believe." The court held that an officer's prima facie satisfaction based on contemporaneous material (interception near the Indo-Bangladesh border, route deviation and other circumstances) suffices; courts will not dissect the reasons so long as reasonable belief is shown, hence preventive powers under Section 110 extend to inland areas proximate to borders and do not amount to a roving enquiry - outcome: seizure and related orders upheld and appeal dismissed; domestic-trade claim held rebuttable under Section 124. - HC
The central issue was whether preventive seizure under Section 110(1) was jurisdictionally valid and supported by a "reason to believe." The court held that an officer's prima facie satisfaction based on contemporaneous material (interception near the Indo-Bangladesh border, route deviation and other circumstances) suffices; courts will not dissect the reasons so long as reasonable belief is shown, hence preventive powers under Section 110 extend to inland areas proximate to borders and do not amount to a roving enquiry - outcome: seizure and related orders upheld and appeal dismissed; domestic-trade claim held rebuttable under Section 124. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.