Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The appellant challenged the summoning order on the ground that the complaint was not premature, as it was filed within the limitation period of one month from the cause of action u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The SC held that the cause of action for the complainant arises when there is no payment of the dishonored cheque amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. In this case, the legal notice was received on 01.10.2019, and the reply was given on 16.10.2019 without payment. Therefore, the complaint filed on 23.10.2019 was within the one-month limitation period from 16.10.2019 as per Section 142(1)(b) of the Act. The HC erred in construing the limitation period from the reply date instead of the non-payment date. The SC set aside the HC order and revived the summoning order, allowing the appeal.
The appellant challenged the summoning order on the ground that the complaint was not premature, as it was filed within the limitation period of one month from the cause of action u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The SC held that the cause of action for the complainant arises when there is no payment of the dishonored cheque amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice. In this case, the legal notice was received on 01.10.2019, and the reply was given on 16.10.2019 without payment. Therefore, the complaint filed on 23.10.2019 was within the one-month limitation period from 16.10.2019 as per Section 142(1)(b) of the Act. The HC erred in construing the limitation period from the reply date instead of the non-payment date. The SC set aside the HC order and revived the summoning order, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
