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...
The HC held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead Applicants 2 to 4 as accused alongside accused No. 1-firm was without jurisdiction due to the absence of prior sanction mandated by Section 279 of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that mandatory sanction is a prerequisite even under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The evidence did not establish that Applicants 2 to 4 were responsible for the firm's conduct or that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or negligence as required under Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the knowledge of their partnership was not newly discovered evidence. Consequently, the Sessions Judge erred in allowing the application, and the revision petition was allowed, quashing and setting aside the order impleading Applicants 2 to 4 as accused.
The HC held that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead Applicants 2 to 4 as accused alongside accused No. 1-firm was without jurisdiction due to the absence of prior sanction mandated by Section 279 of the Income Tax Act. The court emphasized that mandatory sanction is a prerequisite even under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The evidence did not establish that Applicants 2 to 4 were responsible for the firm's conduct or that the offence was committed with their consent, connivance, or negligence as required under Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the knowledge of their partnership was not newly discovered evidence. Consequently, the Sessions Judge erred in allowing the application, and the revision petition was allowed, quashing and setting aside the order impleading Applicants 2 to 4 as accused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
