Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional attachment because the challenge went to the very legality of invoking the exceptional power of immediate attachment, and the statutory remedy under adjudication was not an efficacious forum to test compliance with the preconditions. The Court held that where the second proviso to Section 5(1) is invoked, the competent officer must record objective reasons, based on material in possession, showing that non-attachment would likely frustrate proceedings. As the order relied mainly on alleged laundering material and did not disclose a legally sufficient nexus to urgency or possible frustration, the attachment was vitiated. The provisional attachment and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable against provisional attachment because the challenge went to the very legality of invoking the exceptional power of immediate attachment, and the statutory remedy under adjudication was not an efficacious forum to test compliance with the preconditions. The Court held that where the second proviso to Section 5(1) is invoked, the competent officer must record objective reasons, based on material in possession, showing that non-attachment would likely frustrate proceedings. As the order relied mainly on alleged laundering material and did not disclose a legally sufficient nexus to urgency or possible frustration, the attachment was vitiated. The provisional attachment and consequential proceedings were set aside, with liberty to commence fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
