Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse.
The AT dismissed the appeal, holding that attachment under the PMLA of property already subject to a pre-existing mortgage in favour of the appellant bank does not invalidate the attachment and that secured creditors retain priority interest but such priority does not preclude attachment by the respondent directorate; the appellant, a scheduled commercial bank not implicated in the scheduled offence, failed to establish merit for setting aside the attachment. The AT nonetheless recognized the appellant's alternative remedy and clarified that the appellant is entitled to pursue interlocutory or substantive relief under Section 8(7) or 8(8) before the Sp. Ct. during pendency of prosecution, and this order does not bar such recourse.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
