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...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
The High Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners u/s 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby refusing to discharge them and quash the complaint regarding excess drawback amount demand by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The court held that since the revision filed by the respondent against the original order dated 30.09.2013 is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority, no purpose would be served by allowing the complainant to proceed against the petitioners. However, discharging the accused on the ground that the original order is set aside would deprive the respondent of the right to prosecute based on that order. Consequently, the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, was directed to stop further proceedings against the petitioners for the present, with liberty to the respondent to revive the complaint upon final adjudication of the dispute by the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners u/s 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby refusing to discharge them and quash the complaint regarding excess drawback amount demand by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. The court held that since the revision filed by the respondent against the original order dated 30.09.2013 is pending consideration before the Revisional Authority, no purpose would be served by allowing the complainant to proceed against the petitioners. However, discharging the accused on the ground that the original order is set aside would deprive the respondent of the right to prosecute based on that order. Consequently, the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, was directed to stop further proceedings against the petitioners for the present, with liberty to the respondent to revive the complaint upon final adjudication of the dispute by the Revisional Authority, i.e., the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
