Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
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 4821 
Join Channel 
