Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
The AT, on appeal from an adjudication alleging front-running under Section 12(A)(c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), 3(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(q) of the PFUTP Regulations, concluded that the charge was not established on the preponderance of probabilities and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that an external forensic report obtained during the investigation implicated connections between the complainant and a third party and that the adjudicating officer's failure to address that report warranted an adverse inference against the regulator. Absent satisfactory treatment of that material, the appellant's alleged advance trading could not be proved and the penalty was set aside.
The AT, on appeal from an adjudication alleging front-running under Section 12(A)(c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), 3(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(q) of the PFUTP Regulations, concluded that the charge was not established on the preponderance of probabilities and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that an external forensic report obtained during the investigation implicated connections between the complainant and a third party and that the adjudicating officer's failure to address that report warranted an adverse inference against the regulator. Absent satisfactory treatment of that material, the appellant's alleged advance trading could not be proved and the penalty was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.