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 dismissed the petition challenging attachment orders under the PMLA. The court held it possessed territorial jurisdiction at Lucknow since searches/seizures at the petitioners' Lucknow offices gave rise to a part of the cause of action and appeals under Section 42 PMLA (and thus petitions under Section 482 CrPC) lie at that forum. The HC further held the BUDS Act is non-derogatory to other penal statutes, so commission of a BUDS offence does not preclude IPC prosecution. On facts, the court found repayments were funded by new deposits and petitioners continued to solicit deposits despite a prior embargo, so continuation of PMLA proceedings involved no illegality. Petition dismissed.