Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Inventory write-off and fraudulent/wrongful trading allegations in corporate insolvency led to director liability principles applied and appeal dismis...
On approval of a resolution plan, Section 32A of the IBC protects the corporate debtor on a clean slate basis, so attachment of its property for prior offences cannot continue and the impugned MPID notification was liable to be quashed to that extent. The HC also held that vesting under the MPID Act remains inchoate until the Designated Court makes the attachment absolute; absent such an order, the property had not finally vested in the Competent Authority and remained available to the resolution plan. The writ was maintainable because the issue was a pure question of law, despite the alternative forum.
On approval of a resolution plan, Section 32A of the IBC protects the corporate debtor on a clean slate basis, so attachment of its property for prior offences cannot continue and the impugned MPID notification was liable to be quashed to that extent. The HC also held that vesting under the MPID Act remains inchoate until the Designated Court makes the attachment absolute; absent such an order, the property had not finally vested in the Competent Authority and remained available to the resolution plan. The writ was maintainable because the issue was a pure question of law, despite the alternative forum.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.