Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
HC dismisses petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings against anonymized accused arising from IPO-related misconduct, holding that a SEBI consent order and payments of disgorgement/settlement fees do not extinguish or bar prosecution. The court finds allegations disclose prima facie criminality and deliberate intent to obtain unjust enrichment, adversely affecting retail investors and the securities market; such societal and economic offences cannot be neutralized by regulator-set settlements. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Article 227 does not warrant quashing where offences implicate public interest and criminal intent. Accordingly, the consent order and monetary restitution to SEBI do not affect or preclude continuation of prosecutions, and the petitions are dismissed.
HC dismisses petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings against anonymized accused arising from IPO-related misconduct, holding that a SEBI consent order and payments of disgorgement/settlement fees do not extinguish or bar prosecution. The court finds allegations disclose prima facie criminality and deliberate intent to obtain unjust enrichment, adversely affecting retail investors and the securities market; such societal and economic offences cannot be neutralized by regulator-set settlements. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Article 227 does not warrant quashing where offences implicate public interest and criminal intent. Accordingly, the consent order and monetary restitution to SEBI do not affect or preclude continuation of prosecutions, and the petitions are dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
