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...
The Tribunal upheld provisional attachment of flats, parking spaces and agricultural land as equivalent-value property under PMLA, finding that the assets were purchased during the period of criminal activity after receipt of funds treated as proceeds of crime. The appellants' claim that the properties were acquired before the scheduled offence was rejected because the record showed otherwise and no legitimate source of acquisition was proved. It also held that the date of registration of the criminal case was not decisive, and declined to apply Seema Garg in light of later Supreme Court and High Court interpretation that proceeds of crime can cover property of equivalent value. The confirmation of attachment was sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld provisional attachment of flats, parking spaces and agricultural land as equivalent-value property under PMLA, finding that the assets were purchased during the period of criminal activity after receipt of funds treated as proceeds of crime. The appellants' claim that the properties were acquired before the scheduled offence was rejected because the record showed otherwise and no legitimate source of acquisition was proved. It also held that the date of registration of the criminal case was not decisive, and declined to apply Seema Garg in light of later Supreme Court and High Court interpretation that proceeds of crime can cover property of equivalent value. The confirmation of attachment was sustained and both appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
