https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253806 Article 32 writ petitions based on an asserted apprehension of arrest were held premature because no concrete action had been taken against the petitioners, so extraordinary preventive relief was not warranted and the substantive issues were not decided. The Court permitted withdrawal of the petitions with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies if future facts justify them. It also recorded that the period during which interim orders remained in force may be excluded for computing statutory periods under the Customs and Central Excise laws, so respondents are not prejudiced in proceeding with summons. The framed question of law was left open for decision in an appropriate future case. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jul 2024 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253806 Article 32 writ petitions based on an asserted apprehension of arrest were held premature because no concrete action had been taken against the petitioners, so extraordinary preventive relief was not warranted and the substantive issues were not decided. The Court permitted withdrawal of the petitions with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies if future facts justify them. It also recorded that the period during which interim orders remained in force may be excluded for computing statutory periods under the Customs and Central Excise laws, so respondents are not prejudiced in proceeding with summons. The framed question of law was left open for decision in an appropriate future case. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253806