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...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT partially allowed the appeal, finding procedural defects in the provisional attachment order (PAO) for a specific property. The tribunal determined that the PAO was issued after amendments to PMLA incorporating Prevention of Corruption Act provisions, thus not retrospectively invalid. However, the order was set aside due to failure to issue show cause notice (SCN) to the co-owner as mandated under Section 8(1) of PMLA. Consequently, the PAO for the specific flat at Patel Nagar was quashed, with the attachment order being declared invalid for procedural non-compliance.
The AT partially allowed the appeal, finding procedural defects in the provisional attachment order (PAO) for a specific property. The tribunal determined that the PAO was issued after amendments to PMLA incorporating Prevention of Corruption Act provisions, thus not retrospectively invalid. However, the order was set aside due to failure to issue show cause notice (SCN) to the co-owner as mandated under Section 8(1) of PMLA. Consequently, the PAO for the specific flat at Patel Nagar was quashed, with the attachment order being declared invalid for procedural non-compliance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.