Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Kubolay Paul Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) , Shillong

2016 (8) TMI 1126 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

Maintainability - pendency of appeal for release of seized goods - after repeated orders of the Court, the authority passed speaking order in the matter - goods unfit for human consumption - when the order so passed could be questioned in the regular proceedings, is writ petition maintainable, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed and by the time the matter would be decided by the Tribunal, the petitioner may suffer further injury and losses? - Held that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made by the petitioner, including those related with unnecessary delay on the part of the authority in passing the order, are left open to be raised by the petitioner in accordance with law with the Tribunal concerned - petition disposed off. - WP (C) No.198 of 2016 - Dated:- 9-8-2016 - MR. DINESH MAHESHWARI, & MR. VED PRAKASH VAISH JJ. Mr. N Dasgupta, for the petitioner Mr. N Mozika, for the respondents BY THE COURT: (per Hon ble the Chief Justice) (Oral)

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Then, on 15.07.2016, a communication from the Superintendent (Hqrs. Preventive Unit) dated 14.07.2016 was placed before us with the suggestion that release of seized goods was not considered as they were found unfit for human consumption. In the order dated 15.07.2016, we had indicated that the said letter was rather confounding the shortcomings of the respondents; and while issuing notices to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ as prayed for be not issued and also as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the petitioner was not decided in clear terms by way of a speaking order. In the circumstances of the case, we granted yet further time to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong to pass a speaking order, and for that matter, it was provided that the petitioner would attend his office on 03.08.2016. Only after repeated orders of this Court that the authority concerned has now chosen to pass a speaking order in the matter, purportedly on 05.08.2016 that has been forwarde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version