Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
HC held that the learned Special Court (PMLA) violated the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS by taking cognizance without affording the petitioner the mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, contravening principles of natural justice. The court affirmed that the statutory obligation in Section 223 applies as articulated by the Supreme Court and operates from its commencement; further, the provision governed the present complaint filed after 01.07.2024 and cognized on 08.01.2025. The impugned cognizance order dated 08.01.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Special Judge (PMLA), Patna for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard under Section 223(1) BNSS within a reasonable time. Revision petition allowed by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
