Pre-existing disputes over outcome-based professional fees can bar Section 9 insolvency proceedings where contractual entitlement requires investigati...
Corresponding scheduled offences preserve money-laundering jurisdiction despite repeal of the central corruption provision where conduct remains cover...
Concurrent anticipatory-bail jurisdiction permits applications before either forum, while secured evidence may negate custodial interrogation in GST e...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act imposes a mandatory seven-day period, measured from service of notice, for issuing a detention-penalty order concerning a transit-document discrepancy. The term "shall" requires strict compliance because the provision authorises coercive detention and seizure; the absence of an express consequence for delay does not make the limit directory. An order passed after the prescribed period is illegal and without jurisdiction, with consequential setting aside of the penalty and appellate orders and release of the bank guarantee.
Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Act imposes a mandatory seven-day period, measured from service of notice, for issuing a detention-penalty order concerning a transit-document discrepancy. The term "shall" requires strict compliance because the provision authorises coercive detention and seizure; the absence of an express consequence for delay does not make the limit directory. An order passed after the prescribed period is illegal and without jurisdiction, with consequential setting aside of the penalty and appellate orders and release of the bank guarantee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
