Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and, especially where civil imprisonment is sought, require strict compliance with procedure. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had to first record prima facie satisfaction of clear and wilful disobedience and then issue a specific show-cause notice setting out the exact allegations; a routine notice calling for replies was insufficient, so the contempt finding and punishment were vitiated. It further held that personal punishment for contempt cannot be imposed against corporate entities without identifying the individual officers responsible and giving them an opportunity to defend themselves in their personal capacity. The contempt order and imprisonment direction were set aside, with liberty to revive proceedings after proper identification and fresh pleadings.
Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and, especially where civil imprisonment is sought, require strict compliance with procedure. The Tribunal held that the Adjudicating Authority had to first record prima facie satisfaction of clear and wilful disobedience and then issue a specific show-cause notice setting out the exact allegations; a routine notice calling for replies was insufficient, so the contempt finding and punishment were vitiated. It further held that personal punishment for contempt cannot be imposed against corporate entities without identifying the individual officers responsible and giving them an opportunity to defend themselves in their personal capacity. The contempt order and imprisonment direction were set aside, with liberty to revive proceedings after proper identification and fresh pleadings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
