<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (12) TMI 279 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175315</link>
    <description>Under COFEPOSA, the statutory reporting requirement is satisfied by forwarding the detention report to the Central Government within ten days, and proof of receipt within that period is not required; the challenge on this ground therefore failed. Delay of about eight months in passing the detention order did not vitiate it because the relevant test is whether the grounds had become stale or the live-link had snapped, and the sequence of events showed no such break in nexus. A solitary incident can still support preventive detention where the material discloses future potentiality, and the authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction was not shown to be perverse or unsupported.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:40:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=405578" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (12) TMI 279 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175315</link>
      <description>Under COFEPOSA, the statutory reporting requirement is satisfied by forwarding the detention report to the Central Government within ten days, and proof of receipt within that period is not required; the challenge on this ground therefore failed. Delay of about eight months in passing the detention order did not vitiate it because the relevant test is whether the grounds had become stale or the live-link had snapped, and the sequence of events showed no such break in nexus. A solitary incident can still support preventive detention where the material discloses future potentiality, and the authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction was not shown to be perverse or unsupported.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>