<?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>2021 (2) TMI 310 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403818</link>
    <description>An application for inventory, certification and drawing of representative samples under Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act is maintainable before a Judicial Magistrate, because the statute expressly permits an application to any Magistrate and requires prompt allowance of the request. The scheme also treats the certified inventory, photographs and sample list as primary evidence under Section 52A(4), confirming Magistrate-supervised proceedings. An order rejecting such an application on the footing that it could be made only before an Executive Magistrate was inconsistent with the statute and could not stand; the rejection was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:16:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=635814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 310 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403818</link>
      <description>An application for inventory, certification and drawing of representative samples under Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act is maintainable before a Judicial Magistrate, because the statute expressly permits an application to any Magistrate and requires prompt allowance of the request. The scheme also treats the certified inventory, photographs and sample list as primary evidence under Section 52A(4), confirming Magistrate-supervised proceedings. An order rejecting such an application on the footing that it could be made only before an Executive Magistrate was inconsistent with the statute and could not stand; the rejection was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>