<?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>2012 (1) TMI 269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182587</link>
    <description>In preventive detention, only documents actually relied upon and material to the detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu. The Court found that the alleged retractions were not shown to have been served on the revenue or brought to the sponsoring authority&#039;s notice before the detention order, and the detenu gave no better particulars to prove otherwise. The bail applications contained only a general plea of false implication, while the bail orders were supplied; because the detention order did not rely on the bail applications, their non-supply caused no prejudice. The detention order was therefore not vitiated by non-consideration or non-supply of the alleged retractions, bail applications, or co-detenus&#039; statements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182587</link>
      <description>In preventive detention, only documents actually relied upon and material to the detaining authority&#039;s subjective satisfaction must be supplied to the detenu. The Court found that the alleged retractions were not shown to have been served on the revenue or brought to the sponsoring authority&#039;s notice before the detention order, and the detenu gave no better particulars to prove otherwise. The bail applications contained only a general plea of false implication, while the bail orders were supplied; because the detention order did not rely on the bail applications, their non-supply caused no prejudice. The detention order was therefore not vitiated by non-consideration or non-supply of the alleged retractions, bail applications, or co-detenus&#039; statements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>