Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
The HC quashed the impugned freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 as legally unsustainable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's conclusion. The court found the authorised officer's Section 17(1A) orders to be cryptic and based on mere suspicion, lacking the requisite recorded "reason to believe" and failing compliance with Sub-secs. (1) and (1A) of Section 17 and Rules 3-4 (Search/Seizure or Freezing) of the PMLA Rules, 2005. The HC held that freezing, being an alternative to seizure, cannot be effected on a lesser standard than a reason to believe, and noted that the Section 17(4) application improperly relied on the FIR/investigation, rendering the orders void ab initio.
The HC quashed the impugned freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 as legally unsustainable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Appellate Tribunal's conclusion. The court found the authorised officer's Section 17(1A) orders to be cryptic and based on mere suspicion, lacking the requisite recorded "reason to believe" and failing compliance with Sub-secs. (1) and (1A) of Section 17 and Rules 3-4 (Search/Seizure or Freezing) of the PMLA Rules, 2005. The HC held that freezing, being an alternative to seizure, cannot be effected on a lesser standard than a reason to believe, and noted that the Section 17(4) application improperly relied on the FIR/investigation, rendering the orders void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
