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 HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned SJ judgment and reinstated the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) and consequential proceedings. The court held the writ challenge under Art.226 was not maintainable as Whirlpool parameters were not attracted; no breach of natural justice occurred and the PAO is provisional pending adjudication. The HC confirmed a sufficient nexus between the scheduled predicate offence (fraud/misrepresentation) and the attached proceeds, endorsing the Directorate's tracing of enhanced value as proceeds of crime under s.3 PMLA. Compliance with s.66(2) PMLA was held not to be a condition precedent to issuance of a s.5 PAO.
The HC allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned SJ judgment and reinstated the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) and consequential proceedings. The court held the writ challenge under Art.226 was not maintainable as Whirlpool parameters were not attracted; no breach of natural justice occurred and the PAO is provisional pending adjudication. The HC confirmed a sufficient nexus between the scheduled predicate offence (fraud/misrepresentation) and the attached proceeds, endorsing the Directorate's tracing of enhanced value as proceeds of crime under s.3 PMLA. Compliance with s.66(2) PMLA was held not to be a condition precedent to issuance of a s.5 PAO.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
