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...
The provisional attachment order treating the appellant's land property as 'proceeds of crime' was challenged on the ground of time limitation of 180 days. It was held that even if the appellant is not an accused but holds the 'proceeds of crime', and even if the property is not directly or indirectly obtained from the crime but is of the value thereof, it would fall under the definition of 'proceeds of crime' and can be subjected to seizure/attachment. Regarding the provisional attachment lapsing after 180 days, reliance was placed on a Telangana High Court judgment where the period of 180 days was counted after excluding the COVID-19 period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, as notified by the Government. The main allegation involved extracting money from 51 students for arranging visas and admissions in Australia, amounting to Rs.7.56 crores, which was treated as 'proceeds of crime'. The investigation revealed the involvement of certain individuals in generating this money through a scheduled offence. The circular transaction was found to be created to project the 'proceeds of crime' as untainted. The appeal was dismissed.
The provisional attachment order treating the appellant's land property as 'proceeds of crime' was challenged on the ground of time limitation of 180 days. It was held that even if the appellant is not an accused but holds the 'proceeds of crime', and even if the property is not directly or indirectly obtained from the crime but is of the value thereof, it would fall under the definition of 'proceeds of crime' and can be subjected to seizure/attachment. Regarding the provisional attachment lapsing after 180 days, reliance was placed on a Telangana High Court judgment where the period of 180 days was counted after excluding the COVID-19 period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, as notified by the Government. The main allegation involved extracting money from 51 students for arranging visas and admissions in Australia, amounting to Rs.7.56 crores, which was treated as 'proceeds of crime'. The investigation revealed the involvement of certain individuals in generating this money through a scheduled offence. The circular transaction was found to be created to project the 'proceeds of crime' as untainted. The appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.