Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14, 20, and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. During investigation by Enforcement Directorate, accused admitted paying crores of rupees for obtaining illegal favors from government servants, constituting money laundering offence u/s 3 of PMLA. Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case upheld, stating Article 20(3) applies only when accused is compelled to witness against himself. Petitioners, though witnesses in scheduled offences, became accused in PMLA case based on their statements. Proceedings under scheduled offences and PMLA separate and distinct. Summoning petitioners justified to unearth money trail. Petitions dismissed.
Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14, 20, and 21 of Constitution of India and Section 132 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. During investigation by Enforcement Directorate, accused admitted paying crores of rupees for obtaining illegal favors from government servants, constituting money laundering offence u/s 3 of PMLA. Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case upheld, stating Article 20(3) applies only when accused is compelled to witness against himself. Petitioners, though witnesses in scheduled offences, became accused in PMLA case based on their statements. Proceedings under scheduled offences and PMLA separate and distinct. Summoning petitioners justified to unearth money trail. Petitions dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
