Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The AT dismissed appeals challenging property attachment under money laundering provisions. Despite appellants not being named in the predicate offence FIR or chargesheet, the tribunal held that properties can be attached from any person possessing proceeds of crime, following Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The corporate appellants, though non-corporeal juristic persons, could not claim immunity as they were controlled by accused shareholders who layered criminal proceeds through these entities. The ED established reasonable belief that properties constituted proceeds of crime through evidence of foreign remittances, layering activities, and nexus with predicate offences. Appellants failed to demonstrate legitimate income sources or break the connection to criminal proceeds. The attachment was deemed lawful and properly confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
The AT dismissed appeals challenging property attachment under money laundering provisions. Despite appellants not being named in the predicate offence FIR or chargesheet, the tribunal held that properties can be attached from any person possessing proceeds of crime, following Supreme Court precedent in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. The corporate appellants, though non-corporeal juristic persons, could not claim immunity as they were controlled by accused shareholders who layered criminal proceeds through these entities. The ED established reasonable belief that properties constituted proceeds of crime through evidence of foreign remittances, layering activities, and nexus with predicate offences. Appellants failed to demonstrate legitimate income sources or break the connection to criminal proceeds. The attachment was deemed lawful and properly confirmed by the adjudicating authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.