<?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>2020 (2) TMI 243 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391799</link>
    <description>Preventive detention is invalid where unexplained delay breaks the live-link between past prejudicial activity and the detention order, because the authority must show that the necessity for detention remained current. The order is also vitiated when vital material, including bail, anticipatory bail, retraction and later adjudicatory developments, is not placed before or considered by the detaining authority, as this undermines subjective satisfaction. Further, differential treatment of a co-detenue on substantially identical facts, without a cogent distinction, indicates non-application of mind. On these grounds, the detention order could not stand and the detenue was entitled to release.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2020 10:41:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603111" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 243 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391799</link>
      <description>Preventive detention is invalid where unexplained delay breaks the live-link between past prejudicial activity and the detention order, because the authority must show that the necessity for detention remained current. The order is also vitiated when vital material, including bail, anticipatory bail, retraction and later adjudicatory developments, is not placed before or considered by the detaining authority, as this undermines subjective satisfaction. Further, differential treatment of a co-detenue on substantially identical facts, without a cogent distinction, indicates non-application of mind. On these grounds, the detention order could not stand and the detenue was entitled to release.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>