Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Delay and laches can defeat a request for interim protection against recovery proceedings where the party waits to approach the Court after receiving an initial notice threatening coercive action. The Court noted that the petitioner had already replied with objections to the notice, so any challenge to the proposed recovery and alleged non-consideration of the representation should have been made promptly at that stage. Because the petition was filed only after later recovery notices were issued, the delay was treated as unjustified for interim relief. Interim protection was refused, while the petition remained pending and the respondents were asked to explain the non-consideration of the representation and the timing of the recovery action.
Delay and laches can defeat a request for interim protection against recovery proceedings where the party waits to approach the Court after receiving an initial notice threatening coercive action. The Court noted that the petitioner had already replied with objections to the notice, so any challenge to the proposed recovery and alleged non-consideration of the representation should have been made promptly at that stage. Because the petition was filed only after later recovery notices were issued, the delay was treated as unjustified for interim relief. Interim protection was refused, while the petition remained pending and the respondents were asked to explain the non-consideration of the representation and the timing of the recovery action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.