Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97820 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
