Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Service of notice and a subsequent order under the Act were treated as sufficient to set criminal proceedings in motion for wilful failure to deposit tax deducted at source under Section 276B. The High Court held that due service had been established, and the applicants could not resist prosecution by claiming ignorance when continued non-compliance after notice disclosed a prima facie case of wilful default. The objection of non-service was treated as a disputed factual issue for trial, not a ground for quashing in inherent jurisdiction. The fact that the offence was compoundable did not justify termination of the prosecution absent settlement. The applications for quashing were dismissed.
Service of notice and a subsequent order under the Act were treated as sufficient to set criminal proceedings in motion for wilful failure to deposit tax deducted at source under Section 276B. The High Court held that due service had been established, and the applicants could not resist prosecution by claiming ignorance when continued non-compliance after notice disclosed a prima facie case of wilful default. The objection of non-service was treated as a disputed factual issue for trial, not a ground for quashing in inherent jurisdiction. The fact that the offence was compoundable did not justify termination of the prosecution absent settlement. The applications for quashing were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.