Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
SC held that the respondent lacked authority to issue subsequent provisional attachment orders under sub-section (1) of Section 83 after the initial provisional attachment had ceased by efflux of one year under sub-section (2); permitting renewal would render sub-section (2) otiose and exceed executive power by effectively supplanting statutory prescription. The Court reaffirmed that executive measures may supplement but cannot supplant statutory law and that draconian attachment powers must be construed so as to preserve legislative intent. The impugned orders dated 13 Nov and 18 Dec 2024 were declared invalid, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bank accounts ordered defreezed and made operable upon production of this judgment.
SC held that the respondent lacked authority to issue subsequent provisional attachment orders under sub-section (1) of Section 83 after the initial provisional attachment had ceased by efflux of one year under sub-section (2); permitting renewal would render sub-section (2) otiose and exceed executive power by effectively supplanting statutory prescription. The Court reaffirmed that executive measures may supplement but cannot supplant statutory law and that draconian attachment powers must be construed so as to preserve legislative intent. The impugned orders dated 13 Nov and 18 Dec 2024 were declared invalid, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bank accounts ordered defreezed and made operable upon production of this judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.