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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the Single Judge's order upholding the Provisional Attachment Order under the PMLA, affirming that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly where an alternative efficacious remedy exists and only upon proof of mala fides, patent arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction. The Court held a PAO is a provisional safeguard for future PMLA proceedings and non-compliance with the first proviso to s.5(1) is not per se fatal to attachment proceedings. The Court found the designated authority had cogent material to believe proceeds of crime were invested and limited attachment to properties acquired during 2009-2014; quashing was denied.
The HC dismissed the appeal and refused to interfere with the Single Judge's order upholding the Provisional Attachment Order under the PMLA, affirming that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly where an alternative efficacious remedy exists and only upon proof of mala fides, patent arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction. The Court held a PAO is a provisional safeguard for future PMLA proceedings and non-compliance with the first proviso to s.5(1) is not per se fatal to attachment proceedings. The Court found the designated authority had cogent material to believe proceeds of crime were invested and limited attachment to properties acquired during 2009-2014; quashing was denied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
