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...
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an arrest order under PMLA, finding no territorial jurisdiction. The scheduled offence was registered in Saharanpur, UP, with the Special Court passing the remand order. Despite initial investigative activities in Himachal Pradesh, the primary cause of action and subsequent proceedings were located in UP. The court held that mere preliminary investigative steps do not confer jurisdictional rights, and the trial of money laundering offences should follow the predicate scheduled offence's jurisdiction. Consequently, the HC determined it lacks competence to examine the merits of the arrest order, resulting in the petition's dismissal.
HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an arrest order under PMLA, finding no territorial jurisdiction. The scheduled offence was registered in Saharanpur, UP, with the Special Court passing the remand order. Despite initial investigative activities in Himachal Pradesh, the primary cause of action and subsequent proceedings were located in UP. The court held that mere preliminary investigative steps do not confer jurisdictional rights, and the trial of money laundering offences should follow the predicate scheduled offence's jurisdiction. Consequently, the HC determined it lacks competence to examine the merits of the arrest order, resulting in the petition's dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
