Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order issued for offences u/ss 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the non-application of mind by the lower courts. It clarified the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, stating that vicarious liability cannot be attributed to office bearers for these offences unless a statutory provision exists. Mere breach of contract or trust does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating unless fraudulent intention is proven from inception. In sale of goods, failure to pay consideration cannot amount to criminal breach of trust as the property passes to the purchaser upon delivery. The magistrate and police must carefully apply their mind to ascertain if allegations genuinely constitute these offences before taking cognizance or registering FIR.
The Supreme Court quashed the summoning order issued for offences u/ss 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, emphasizing the non-application of mind by the lower courts. It clarified the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating, stating that vicarious liability cannot be attributed to office bearers for these offences unless a statutory provision exists. Mere breach of contract or trust does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating unless fraudulent intention is proven from inception. In sale of goods, failure to pay consideration cannot amount to criminal breach of trust as the property passes to the purchaser upon delivery. The magistrate and police must carefully apply their mind to ascertain if allegations genuinely constitute these offences before taking cognizance or registering FIR.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
