Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
