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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court considered a case involving a challenge to an attachment order by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The proceedings stemmed from a crime registered by the Lokayukta for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the husband and wife. The court noted that the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was closed for the wife in 2016 and for the petitioner in 2023. The Lokayukta challenged these proceedings in the Apex Court, which held that if the predicate offence is nullified by a competent court, the PMLA proceedings would also cease. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, allowing the petition.
The High Court considered a case involving a challenge to an attachment order by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The proceedings stemmed from a crime registered by the Lokayukta for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the husband and wife. The court noted that the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was closed for the wife in 2016 and for the petitioner in 2023. The Lokayukta challenged these proceedings in the Apex Court, which held that if the predicate offence is nullified by a competent court, the PMLA proceedings would also cease. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, allowing the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
