Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for customs duty evasion. The court held that any person (Directors) directly or indirectly involved in projecting proceeds of crime as untainted property is guilty of money laundering u/s 3 of PMLA, punishable u/s 4. The person need not be an accused in the predicate offence. The petitioners' contention of not being involved in the company's day-to-day administration was rejected, as the PMLA complaint was for possession and use of proceeds of crime, not for offences committed as directors. The court reiterated that money laundering is a stand-alone offence distinct from the predicate offence, and the trial court should proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the complaint filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for customs duty evasion. The court held that any person (Directors) directly or indirectly involved in projecting proceeds of crime as untainted property is guilty of money laundering u/s 3 of PMLA, punishable u/s 4. The person need not be an accused in the predicate offence. The petitioners' contention of not being involved in the company's day-to-day administration was rejected, as the PMLA complaint was for possession and use of proceeds of crime, not for offences committed as directors. The court reiterated that money laundering is a stand-alone offence distinct from the predicate offence, and the trial court should proceed uninfluenced by observations in this order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
