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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 
