Independent assessment discretion and corroborated electronic evidence determine validity of on-money additions and undisclosed-consideration assessme...
Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4819 
Join Channel 
