CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
MAT book-profit adjustments exclude disallowances for exempt-income expenditure and demerger expenditure unless expressly listed under the statutory c...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95794 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 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
