<?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>2019 (4) TMI 2036 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300007</link>
    <description>In preventive detention under COFEPOSA, the Advisory Board and the Government must consider all relevant material before confirming detention, including a prior revocation order passed in favour of a co-detenu involved in the same transaction. The non-consideration of that revocation was treated as failure to consider a vital circumstance bearing on the detention decision. On that basis, the confirmation of detention was held to be vitiated and the detention order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2022 09:46:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2036 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300007</link>
      <description>In preventive detention under COFEPOSA, the Advisory Board and the Government must consider all relevant material before confirming detention, including a prior revocation order passed in favour of a co-detenu involved in the same transaction. The non-consideration of that revocation was treated as failure to consider a vital circumstance bearing on the detention decision. On that basis, the confirmation of detention was held to be vitiated and the detention order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>