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 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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.