https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763313 Contempt proceedings were declined after the respondents produced a subsequent order showing that the petitioner's application had been processed, as the Court found that nothing further survived on the alleged wilful disobedience issue. Although the petitioner objected that compliance occurred after the stipulated timeline, the Court treated the post-order action as sufficient to dispose of the contempt complaint. The Court preserved the petitioner's right to challenge the administrative decision on merits through appropriate proceedings. On the separate issue of deposited Demand Drafts, the respondents undertook to return them within three working days, either by collection or by registered post/courier, and that undertaking was recorded. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763313 Contempt proceedings were declined after the respondents produced a subsequent order showing that the petitioner's application had been processed, as the Court found that nothing further survived on the alleged wilful disobedience issue. Although the petitioner objected that compliance occurred after the stipulated timeline, the Court treated the post-order action as sufficient to dispose of the contempt complaint. The Court preserved the petitioner's right to challenge the administrative decision on merits through appropriate proceedings. On the separate issue of deposited Demand Drafts, the respondents undertook to return them within three working days, either by collection or by registered post/courier, and that undertaking was recorded. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763313