Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Right to access seized electronic evidence: impugned adjudication treated as additional show cause notice, remand for fresh hearing and return of mate...
Revisability of return invalidation communications under tax procedure affirmed, impugned non revisional finding quashed and matter remitted for fresh...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6481 to 6500 of 96301 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21, and telephone interception infringes that right unless authorised by law and confined strictly to statutory limits. The HC held that Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act permits tapping only on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety, conditions that were absent in a covert bribery-detection operation; the interception order was therefore without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. It further held that Rule 419-A's mandatory review safeguard was breached because the intercepted material was not placed before the Review Committee, so the intercepted conversations could not be used for any purpose. Independent material collected later remained unaffected.
Right to privacy is an intrinsic part of Article 21, and telephone interception infringes that right unless authorised by law and confined strictly to statutory limits. The HC held that Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act permits tapping only on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interests of public safety, conditions that were absent in a covert bribery-detection operation; the interception order was therefore without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. It further held that Rule 419-A's mandatory review safeguard was breached because the intercepted material was not placed before the Review Committee, so the intercepted conversations could not be used for any purpose. Independent material collected later remained unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.