TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 should be transferred to the Court where the connected prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was pending.
Analysis: The statement of the Additional Solicitor General that the connected court was competent to try both cases was taken on record. On that basis, the Court directed transfer of the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, Kerala, where the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was already pending. The Court expressly clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the legal issue and that the issue was left open.
Conclusion: The prosecution was ordered to be transferred and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
