Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The HC held that the Special Judge's cognizance of money laundering charges against a government servant, based on assets exceeding known income by 113.45%, was invalid for failure to comply with the first proviso to Section 223(1) of the BNSS, which mandates giving the accused an opportunity to be heard before cognizance. This procedural safeguard departs from the Cr.P.C. and cannot be bypassed. The Court clarified that re-examination of the complainant or witnesses is unnecessary when the complaint is by a public servant in official capacity or under transfer provisions of Section 212 BNSS. Consequently, the HC set aside the cognizance order dated 27.03.2025, reverting the matter to the pre-cognizance stage with directions for the Special Judge to adhere to the statutory hearing requirement before proceeding further. The petition was allowed accordingly.