Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
The Calcutta High Court dealt with a case involving a conviction u/s 57 of FERA for non-realization of export proceeds, which was later repealed and replaced by FEMA. The court held that FEMA provisions apply to offences committed under FERA. The petitioner was found guilty of violating FERA provisions before the enactment of FEMA. The court noted a sunset period for adjudicating FERA offences before FEMA's applicability. The court rejected leniency arguments based on FEMA provisions. The court invoked its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC to uphold the conviction, modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs due to the petitioner's age and the time lapse since the offence. The criminal revisional application was dismissed.
The Calcutta High Court dealt with a case involving a conviction u/s 57 of FERA for non-realization of export proceeds, which was later repealed and replaced by FEMA. The court held that FEMA provisions apply to offences committed under FERA. The petitioner was found guilty of violating FERA provisions before the enactment of FEMA. The court noted a sunset period for adjudicating FERA offences before FEMA's applicability. The court rejected leniency arguments based on FEMA provisions. The court invoked its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC to uphold the conviction, modifying the sentence to a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs due to the petitioner's age and the time lapse since the offence. The criminal revisional application was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
