Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The Court held that the procedure followed by the Directorate of Enforcement in seizing and selling the luxury vehicles was in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Rules of 2013. The vehicles were prima facie found to have been purchased from the proceeds of crime generated through criminal activities. The Court recognized that vehicles are subject to natural decay and depreciation, making them economically unviable over time. By converting the sale proceeds into fixed deposits, the Rules ensure preservation and potential increase in value, protecting the rights of both the accused and the investigating agency. The petitioner did not request the retention of vehicles in exchange for fixed deposits. The sale does not violate Section 8(6) of PMLA, as the accused would receive the sale proceeds if acquitted. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.
The Court held that the procedure followed by the Directorate of Enforcement in seizing and selling the luxury vehicles was in accordance with the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Rules of 2013. The vehicles were prima facie found to have been purchased from the proceeds of crime generated through criminal activities. The Court recognized that vehicles are subject to natural decay and depreciation, making them economically unviable over time. By converting the sale proceeds into fixed deposits, the Rules ensure preservation and potential increase in value, protecting the rights of both the accused and the investigating agency. The petitioner did not request the retention of vehicles in exchange for fixed deposits. The sale does not violate Section 8(6) of PMLA, as the accused would receive the sale proceeds if acquitted. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned orders and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
