Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.62 seconds)
Raj Kumar Agrawal And Anr vs The Union Of India And Ors on 10 July, 2024 cites

Chairman-Cum-M.D.,Coal India Ld.& Ors vs Ananta Saha & Ors on 6 April, 2011

3. Reliance was placed on Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others; (2011) 5 SCC 142 to contend that when the foundation itself is removed, i.e. the seizure is vitiated, the superstructure falls. If the 'reason to believe' is found to be not valid then necessarily there can be no valid seizure or further adjudication Patna High Court CWJC No.6377 of 2015 dt.10-07-2024 3/7 on the basis of the invalid seizure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 416 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015

10. It is pertinent that by reason of the above contradiction in the seizure and the show-cause notice, the petitioners had specifically sought for cross-examination of the Inspector of Customs who seized the goods. The same has been recorded in the adjudication order but there is nothing to show that such cross-examination was permitted. Going by the dictum in Andaman Timber Industries (supra) we also have to find that there is violation of principles of natural justice by reason of the denial of cross-examination of the seizing officer, especially on the contradiction coming out from the seizure memo and the show-cause notice.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 602 - Full Document

Sheo Nath Singh vs Appellate Assistant Commissioner ... on 12 August, 1971

In our judgment, the law laid down by this Court in the above case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. There can be no manner of doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income Tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income Tax Officer would be Patna High Court CWJC No.6377 of 2015 dt.10-07-2024 5/7 acting without jurisdiction if the reason for his belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or is not material or relevant to the belief required by the section. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 136 - A N Grover - Full Document

State Of H.P. And Ors vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. And Anr on 18 July, 2005

8. The 'reason to believe' hence is the foundational aspect which enables seizure and initiation of an adjudication proceeding. In the present case we have seen that the 'reason to believe' is illegal import while the adjudication has proceeded on the allegation of illegal export. Even the counter affidavit speaks of export of sugar having been regulated by licence. We find the foundational aspect to be absent in the above proceedings; which would enable invocation of the extraordinary remedy under Article 226, as has been held in State of H.P & Ors. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Anr.; (2005) 6 SCC 499.
Supreme Court of India Cites 52 - Cited by 583 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1