Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
PMLA provisional attachment over PACL-linked properties could not be continued where the Supreme Court had already created a special Article 142 restitution framework for investors. The Court noted that enforcement powers are not extinguished by judicial directions, but they must operate consistently with the court-prescribed mechanism. It further held that restoration under the PMLA is only a limited exception dependent on Special Court satisfaction and cannot justify parallel continuation of attachment when the special process is available. Because the attachment had already served any preservative purpose and prolonged pendency was prejudicing investor interests, the matter was directed to proceed under the Supreme Court-created framework, and the attachment orders were set aside.
PMLA provisional attachment over PACL-linked properties could not be continued where the Supreme Court had already created a special Article 142 restitution framework for investors. The Court noted that enforcement powers are not extinguished by judicial directions, but they must operate consistently with the court-prescribed mechanism. It further held that restoration under the PMLA is only a limited exception dependent on Special Court satisfaction and cannot justify parallel continuation of attachment when the special process is available. Because the attachment had already served any preservative purpose and prolonged pendency was prejudicing investor interests, the matter was directed to proceed under the Supreme Court-created framework, and the attachment orders were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
