https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282028 Under COFEPOSA, the five-day period for furnishing grounds of detention is computed by excluding the day on which the detention order is served, so service on the sixth day was in time. A representation addressed only to the Advisory Board did not, by itself, require consideration by the Central Government under Article 22(5) and Section 11, especially where a separate representation to the Government had also been dealt with. Delay in disposal of the Government representation did not vitiate detention because it was not shown to be unreasonable or unexplained on the facts. The challenge based on non-application of mind also failed, and the detention order was upheld. en-us Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2019 18:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282028 Under COFEPOSA, the five-day period for furnishing grounds of detention is computed by excluding the day on which the detention order is served, so service on the sixth day was in time. A representation addressed only to the Advisory Board did not, by itself, require consideration by the Central Government under Article 22(5) and Section 11, especially where a separate representation to the Government had also been dealt with. Delay in disposal of the Government representation did not vitiate detention because it was not shown to be unreasonable or unexplained on the facts. The challenge based on non-application of mind also failed, and the detention order was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282028