Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
A High Court held that money-laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence, but prosecution still requires prima facie material showing proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the accused's involvement in a connected process or activity. Where the predicate investigation had already found that the petitioner was not a beneficiary and no independent material showed tainted funds, the PMLA case could not rest on assumption. The Court also held that a co-accused's Section 50 statement could not, by itself, found the prosecution, and that the warehouse-receipt transactions were not shown to be sham. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner was quashed as abuse of process.
A High Court held that money-laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence, but prosecution still requires prima facie material showing proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the accused's involvement in a connected process or activity. Where the predicate investigation had already found that the petitioner was not a beneficiary and no independent material showed tainted funds, the PMLA case could not rest on assumption. The Court also held that a co-accused's Section 50 statement could not, by itself, found the prosecution, and that the warehouse-receipt transactions were not shown to be sham. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner was quashed as abuse of process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.