https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451070 Adverse observations against a person who was neither impleaded in the proceedings nor shown as an accused in the FIR cannot be sustained if they were unnecessary to decide the matter. The Supreme Court held that remarks made by the High Court against the buyer, in a writ petition challenging confiscation under the Karnataka Excise Act, were unwarranted because the buyer was not before the Court and had no opportunity to respond. Those observations were therefore expunged, while the underlying confiscation dispute remained untouched. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:15:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451070 Adverse observations against a person who was neither impleaded in the proceedings nor shown as an accused in the FIR cannot be sustained if they were unnecessary to decide the matter. The Supreme Court held that remarks made by the High Court against the buyer, in a writ petition challenging confiscation under the Karnataka Excise Act, were unwarranted because the buyer was not before the Court and had no opportunity to respond. Those observations were therefore expunged, while the underlying confiscation dispute remained untouched. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451070