Search Results for "Excise Commissioner"

1658 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1658 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision That Customs Duty Not Part of 'Purchase Price' Under Bombay Sales Tax Act. The term 'Purchase Price' in Rule 41D does not include customs duty, and set-off under Section 75 is only for intra-State purchases.

The case involves a Sales Tax Reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (BST Act) by the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax T...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Settlement Commission's Majority Decision Rejecting Settlement Application in Customs Duty Evasion Case. Majority view prevails over minority view under Section 127I of the Customs Act, 1962 when there is a difference of opinion among Members.

The petitioners, Under Water Services Company Limited and others, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Department's Appeal Order in GST Refund Case Due to Lack of Speaking Order. Refund Sanction of Rs.8,83,232/- Restored as Appellate Authority Failed to Consider Documentary Evidence and Violated Principles of Natural Justice Under CGST Act, 2017.

The petitioner, M/s Acco Logistics and Forwarding, filed a refund application on 12.02.2024 which was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority on 21.0...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition in Goonda Detention Case Due to Non-Communication of Arrest Grounds and Lack of Public Order Impact. Preventive Detention Order Quashed as Alleged Acts Only Amount to Law and Order Issue, Not Public Order, Under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The petitioner, Palanivel Rajan @ PTR Vinoth, was detained as a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by an order dated 17.09.2025 ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition and Quashes Preventive Detention Order Due to Lack of Proximity Between Adverse Cases and Ground Case. Mere Criminal Involvement Insufficient for Preventive Detention Under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as Cases Could Be Dealt with Under Ordinary Law.

The petitioner, Susila, mother of the detenu Aro @ Arokiyam, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition Quashing Preventive Detention Under Act 14 of 1982 for Lack of Public Order Threat. Ground Case Facts Insufficient to Justify Detention; Adverse Cases Dealt with Under Ordinary Law.

The petitioner, initially Thiru.Ravi (who died) and later substituted by Thirumathi.Amala, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Con...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition and Quashes Preventive Detention Order in Job Racketing Case. Court holds that prolonged preventive detention can be substituted by ordinary criminal proceedings under police investigation.

The petitioner, K.V. Santosh, son of the detenu G. Lakshmi, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the M...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition Challenging Preventive Detention Order Due to Undated Special Report. Detenu's Likely Release on Bail Based on Undated Material Constitutes Non-Application of Mind Under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

The petitioner, Gomathi, filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the preventive detention order date...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition in Preventive Detention Case Due to Unexplained Delay. Delay of 51 days between arrest and detention order held to snap live link, rendering detention invalid under Article 22(5) of Constitution.

The petitioner, Pavithra R, the elder sister of the detenu Ajith Kumar, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Quashes Detention Order Due to Unexplained Delay in Preventive Detention Case — Live Link Between Grounds and Purpose Snapped. Unexplained delay of 19 days between arrest and detention order renders detention invalid under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Ramani, mother of the detenu Kannan, filed a Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the det...