https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401205 Delay in executing a preventive detention order was not treated as fatal where the detenue had prior notice, had earlier challenged the proposed detention, and his own conduct contributed to the lapse of time; the live link was therefore not held to be broken. Loss of the original detention order also did not invalidate service or execution where a scanned copy and reconstructed records were used. The Court further held that reference to earlier detention orders, alleged variance in grounds, non-supply of only requested but not relied-upon documents, and rejection of a representation did not vitiate detention. Delay in issuing the order, absence of prosecution, and a request for temporary release likewise did not require quashing. The detention was upheld. en-us Fri, 20 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Nov 2020 19:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401205 Delay in executing a preventive detention order was not treated as fatal where the detenue had prior notice, had earlier challenged the proposed detention, and his own conduct contributed to the lapse of time; the live link was therefore not held to be broken. Loss of the original detention order also did not invalidate service or execution where a scanned copy and reconstructed records were used. The Court further held that reference to earlier detention orders, alleged variance in grounds, non-supply of only requested but not relied-upon documents, and rejection of a representation did not vitiate detention. Delay in issuing the order, absence of prosecution, and a request for temporary release likewise did not require quashing. The detention was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 20 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401205