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...
Pre-cognizance hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is examined in relation to prosecution complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The note states that BNSS provisions on complaints and cognizance apply where the PMLA contains no inconsistent provision. It describes the proviso to section 223(1) as barring cognizance without first hearing the proposed accused, and characterises non-hearing as an illegality rather than a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice. It records that the cognizance order was set aside and the matter restored for reconsideration after hearing the petitioners.
Pre-cognizance hearing under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is examined in relation to prosecution complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The note states that BNSS provisions on complaints and cognizance apply where the PMLA contains no inconsistent provision. It describes the proviso to section 223(1) as barring cognizance without first hearing the proposed accused, and characterises non-hearing as an illegality rather than a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice. It records that the cognizance order was set aside and the matter restored for reconsideration after hearing the petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
