https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404204 The court questioned respondent No.2's authority under the Customs Act to inquire about goods' export, emphasizing Customs Authority's jurisdiction. Doubts regarding the E-way bill were noted, with the court leaning towards the writ applicant's argument. Dissatisfied with respondent No.2's interference, the court added Deputy Commissioner of Customs as respondent No.3. Concerns arose over the detention and clearance of goods, leading to involvement of Customs Authority for clarity. To prevent harassment, the court directed no summoning of the writ applicant by respondent No.2 until the hearing date, ensuring fair proceedings. en-us Tue, 09 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 13:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404204 The court questioned respondent No.2's authority under the Customs Act to inquire about goods' export, emphasizing Customs Authority's jurisdiction. Doubts regarding the E-way bill were noted, with the court leaning towards the writ applicant's argument. Dissatisfied with respondent No.2's interference, the court added Deputy Commissioner of Customs as respondent No.3. Concerns arose over the detention and clearance of goods, leading to involvement of Customs Authority for clarity. To prevent harassment, the court directed no summoning of the writ applicant by respondent No.2 until the hearing date, ensuring fair proceedings. Case-Laws GST Tue, 09 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404204