Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
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.