Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC held that service of a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act on a third person, specifically a relative, without evidence that the accused had knowledge of such service, is insufficient to satisfy the mandatory notice requirement. The Court found no material indicating the accused received or was aware of the notice, which was instead served on the accused's mother. This failure to prove proper service of notice violated the procedural mandate essential for prosecution under Section 138. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the revision petitioner. The ruling reaffirms that the burden lies on the complainant to establish effective service on the accused, and mere service on a relative does not rebut the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act absent proof of the accused's knowledge.
The HC held that service of a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act on a third person, specifically a relative, without evidence that the accused had knowledge of such service, is insufficient to satisfy the mandatory notice requirement. The Court found no material indicating the accused received or was aware of the notice, which was instead served on the accused's mother. This failure to prove proper service of notice violated the procedural mandate essential for prosecution under Section 138. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the revision petitioner. The ruling reaffirms that the burden lies on the complainant to establish effective service on the accused, and mere service on a relative does not rebut the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act absent proof of the accused's knowledge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
