https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186838 The Court addressed the delay in deciding the application for release of seized goods, noting the authority's failure to pass a speaking order despite repeated orders. The Court highlighted the petitioner's claim of harassment and potential losses but emphasized the availability of a regular remedy to challenge the authority's order. Stressing the need for expeditious proceedings, the Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, advising the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy against the authority's decision. en-us Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Oct 2016 17:04:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186838 The Court addressed the delay in deciding the application for release of seized goods, noting the authority's failure to pass a speaking order despite repeated orders. The Court highlighted the petitioner's claim of harassment and potential losses but emphasized the availability of a regular remedy to challenge the authority's order. Stressing the need for expeditious proceedings, the Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, advising the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal remedy against the authority's decision. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186838