Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96092 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 examined whether it is appropriate to entertain a writ petition against a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, before the statutory period of 30 days when the Adjudicating Authority is required to examine it. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 5 of the Act, finding adequate safeguards to give an opportunity to the aggrieved person to file objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The PAO is passed by the Director or authorized officer with reasons based on material in possession. Since sufficient remedies are available under the Act, the High Court held it inappropriate to entertain the petition before the 30-day period expires, except in rare and exceptional cases. The petitioner was relegated to avail alternative remedies, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to expedite the matter without observations on merits.
The High Court examined whether it is appropriate to entertain a writ petition against a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, before the statutory period of 30 days when the Adjudicating Authority is required to examine it. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Section 5 of the Act, finding adequate safeguards to give an opportunity to the aggrieved person to file objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The PAO is passed by the Director or authorized officer with reasons based on material in possession. Since sufficient remedies are available under the Act, the High Court held it inappropriate to entertain the petition before the 30-day period expires, except in rare and exceptional cases. The petitioner was relegated to avail alternative remedies, and the Adjudicating Authority was directed to expedite the matter without observations on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
