Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed a petition challenging the petitioner's detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petitioner alleged procedural violations in his arrest, claiming grounds were not provided in writing as required by Section 19(1) of PMLA. The court determined that the petitioner had confined his challenge to the remand order dated 09.06.2023 without questioning the earlier remand order of 08.06.2023, thus implicitly accepting its validity. The court noted that the petitioner had signed acknowledgments of receiving arrest grounds and subsequently pursued bail on merits rather than challenging procedural defects. Finding no impropriety in the contested remand order and that procedural requirements were satisfied, the court declined to interfere.
The HC dismissed a petition challenging the petitioner's detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petitioner alleged procedural violations in his arrest, claiming grounds were not provided in writing as required by Section 19(1) of PMLA. The court determined that the petitioner had confined his challenge to the remand order dated 09.06.2023 without questioning the earlier remand order of 08.06.2023, thus implicitly accepting its validity. The court noted that the petitioner had signed acknowledgments of receiving arrest grounds and subsequently pursued bail on merits rather than challenging procedural defects. Finding no impropriety in the contested remand order and that procedural requirements were satisfied, the court declined to interfere.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
