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...
HC ruled petitioner's arrest for money laundering under PMLA illegal. Court found ED failed to establish "reason to believe" standard required under Section 19(1) PMLA. No tangible evidence demonstrated petitioner's involvement in illegal sand mining operations or financial transactions with proceeds of crime. ED's investigation lacked proof of petitioner's share deposits in mining bids or direct participation in money laundering activities. While petitioner acknowledged financial dealings with AMPL, prosecution failed to establish connection to proceeds of crime or involvement in concealment, possession, or projection of untainted property. Court emphasized arrest power under PMLA requires substantive evidence of guilt, not merely investigative purposes. Petition granted, arrest declared violation of Section 19(1) PMLA safeguards.
HC ruled petitioner's arrest for money laundering under PMLA illegal. Court found ED failed to establish "reason to believe" standard required under Section 19(1) PMLA. No tangible evidence demonstrated petitioner's involvement in illegal sand mining operations or financial transactions with proceeds of crime. ED's investigation lacked proof of petitioner's share deposits in mining bids or direct participation in money laundering activities. While petitioner acknowledged financial dealings with AMPL, prosecution failed to establish connection to proceeds of crime or involvement in concealment, possession, or projection of untainted property. Court emphasized arrest power under PMLA requires substantive evidence of guilt, not merely investigative purposes. Petition granted, arrest declared violation of Section 19(1) PMLA safeguards.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
