Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
541 to 560 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order that had disallowed the amendment of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. post-cognizance. The Court held that the criminal court possesses the power to permit amendments addressing curable infirmities in a complaint, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. Here, the amendment corrected an inadvertent error concerning the product description without altering the complaint's nature or character. Since the amendment occurred before the trial's conclusion and did not prejudice the respondents, the Trial Court rightly allowed it. The High Court erred by considering extraneous issues like GST leviability, which fall outside the criminal trial's scope. The final determination of the amendment's impact on liability is reserved for the Trial Court based on evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, reinstating the Trial Court's order permitting the amendment.
The SC allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order that had disallowed the amendment of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. post-cognizance. The Court held that the criminal court possesses the power to permit amendments addressing curable infirmities in a complaint, provided no prejudice is caused to the accused. Here, the amendment corrected an inadvertent error concerning the product description without altering the complaint's nature or character. Since the amendment occurred before the trial's conclusion and did not prejudice the respondents, the Trial Court rightly allowed it. The High Court erred by considering extraneous issues like GST leviability, which fall outside the criminal trial's scope. The final determination of the amendment's impact on liability is reserved for the Trial Court based on evidence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, reinstating the Trial Court's order permitting the amendment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
