<?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>1988 (2) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42377</link>
    <description>The High Court quashed the order of confiscation of silver and a car, along with the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were transporting silver, intercepted by officers, but the Court found no conclusive proof of intent to smuggle to Bombay. Emphasizing the distinction between preparation and attempt in committing an offense, the Court held the impugned order lacked evidence and misinterpreted the law. The Court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the authority acted without jurisdiction. The writ petition was not dismissed solely due to the availability of an alternative remedy, and costs were not awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:59:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42377</link>
      <description>The High Court quashed the order of confiscation of silver and a car, along with the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners were transporting silver, intercepted by officers, but the Court found no conclusive proof of intent to smuggle to Bombay. Emphasizing the distinction between preparation and attempt in committing an offense, the Court held the impugned order lacked evidence and misinterpreted the law. The Court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the authority acted without jurisdiction. The writ petition was not dismissed solely due to the availability of an alternative remedy, and costs were not awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>