Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
The Gujarat High Court held that the applicant, as a director and signatory of cheques, can be accused u/s 319 of CrPC despite non-service of notice u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act. The court emphasized the applicant's responsibility for company conduct. Citing Krisha Texport and Capital Markets case, the court found prosecution without notice valid. Impleadment u/s 319 after statutory period expiry is permissible pre-cognizance. The trial court's order was deemed lawful as no abuse of process occurred. The application was dismissed, and the rule discharged.
The Gujarat High Court held that the applicant, as a director and signatory of cheques, can be accused u/s 319 of CrPC despite non-service of notice u/s 138(b) of N.I. Act. The court emphasized the applicant's responsibility for company conduct. Citing Krisha Texport and Capital Markets case, the court found prosecution without notice valid. Impleadment u/s 319 after statutory period expiry is permissible pre-cognizance. The trial court's order was deemed lawful as no abuse of process occurred. The application was dismissed, and the rule discharged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
