News Update

CBDT explains what is 'tax effect' for purpose of filing appeal in cases beyond monetary limitsUS-UK coalition airstrikes at Houthis in Red Sea portPMK joins NDA; to share dais with PM at SalemUK begins hunt for sunken ship loaded with gold worth 4 bn poundsPrivacy at Stake: Evaluating Data Principal Rights in the DPDP Act 2023Delhi regains its title as world’s most polluted cityLitigation Management: CBDT revises instructions and monetary limits prescribed for filing appeal or SLP before courtsUnsettled borders and rise of China major challenges for defence forces, says Chief Anil ChauhanI-T- Rules of natural justice are contravened where notices of hearing are not sent to valid email addresses indicated by assessee & order passed in consequence thereto is invalidated : HCAmerican IRS Chief expects workforce to surpass one-lakh-mark in next 3 yrsI-T - Provisions of Section 148A clearly require that an assessee be granted opportunity of personal hearing & an order passed in non-compliance with this requirement stands vitiated: HCDeloitte LLP goes for restructuring to tamp down costsI-T - If no error is being found by AO qua acceptance and genuineness of transaction of assessee, then AO cannot initiate reopening, and if reopening is not permitted, then CIT cannot issue notice u/s 263: ITATNvidia unfolds powerful chip to retain edge in AI marketI-T - Additions framed u/s 68 were rightly quashed where the assessee has discharged onus of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction : ITATTrump’s lawyer says Trump has not means to raise bond in USD 464 mn fraud caseI-T- Addition cannot be framed on account of unexplained cash credit, where assessee has recorded the sales in its books and there is no adverse finding qua stock and purchases: ITATFood scarcity: Gaza heading for mass deathsCX - Tax demands merits being quashed where based on oral statements but without permitting Assessee to cross examine the deponents & where also based on circumstantial statements: CESTATBJP decides to go with Chirag Paswan; trashes his uncle Pashupati Paras in BiharST - Being appellant a registered service provider and filing their Service Tax returns, demand cannot be raised on the basis of Form-26AS obtained from Income Tax Department: CESTATDubai Financial Centre frames rules to regulate digital assetsCus - Clearance of domestic household goods without proper clearance, does not warrant disproportionate penalty of Rs 50000/-, as the same is not a case of regular import by an IEC holder: CESTATCBDT directs income tax field offices to remain open on March 29, 30 & 31stCX - In so far as security services for their factory and trading premises was concerned, said services was directly connected with their business and hence, appellant was entitled for credit of service tax paid: CESTAT
 
Customs - Supreme Court quashes Detention Order of 2005

By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, FEB 23, 2017: THE issue revolves around the detention order dated 11th August, 2005. The petitioner assailed the detention order, prior to his arrest. He approached the Supreme Court, by filing a writ petition in the year 2006. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 7th March, 2007 as:

In view of letter circulated by learned counsel for the respondent seeking time for filing counter affidavit, the matter is adjourned by one week. In the meanwhile, the respondent - State shall not give effect to the order of detention.

Consequent upon the passing of the above motion Bench order on 7th March, 2007, the petitioner has never been arrested. The writ petition, has been pending for the last more than 10 years. It is not the case of the State, that the petitioner indulged in any untoward activity, while the petition was pending before the Supreme Court, and while the petitioner was a free citizen, enjoying absolute liberty.

In the above view, the Supreme Court observed that there can hardly be any justification, for sustaining the detention order dated 11th August, 2005.

The Supreme Court also noticed that the final order also came to be passed with reference to the detention order.

In response to the show cause notice (dated 25.7.2005) issued to the petitioner, he approached the Settlement Commission, Mumbai. The Settlement Commission passed an order dated 14th November, 2006, completely exonerating the petitioner from any involvement. The Settlement Commission observed that all allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless and unfounded.

Having perused the inferences and conclusions drawn by the Settlement Commission, the Supreme Court is of the view, that the detention order dated 11th August, 2005, was even otherwise improper and unjustified in view of the factual position.

The detention order dated 11th August, 2005, passed against the petitioner is set aside.

(See 2017-TIOL-87-SC-CUS-LB)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023