Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC quashed the proceedings initiated under the PMLA against the petitioners, holding that the order taking cognizance violated the mandatory first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which guarantees the accused a pre-cognizance opportunity of hearing. The Court held that denial of this right vitiates the cognizance itself, rendering all subsequent proceedings null and void, without requiring the accused to prove prejudice or miscarriage of justice. It further rejected the argument that PMLA complaints are akin to charge sheets, affirming they are true complaints subject to BNSS provisions. The omission of explicit reference to complaints under special laws in Section 223 does not exclude the operation of the first proviso. The Court also ruled that inconsistent concessions by the ED are irrelevant to statutory interpretation. Consequently, the impugned cognizance order was declared legally invalid and set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
