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...
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 
