Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the Appellate Tribunal had erroneously set aside the adjudication order by treating absence of a "prosecution complaint" against Respondent A as decisive, although such a contention was never raised and a supplementary complaint had in fact been filed. HC clarified that, under s.17 PMLA, a valid search and seizure does not require that the premises belong to a person already arraigned as an accused; it is sufficient that the authorised officer has "reason to believe" that proceeds of crime or related records are located there, and that the statutory preconditions are met. Finding that these conditions were satisfied and that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, HC set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.
HC held that the Appellate Tribunal had erroneously set aside the adjudication order by treating absence of a "prosecution complaint" against Respondent A as decisive, although such a contention was never raised and a supplementary complaint had in fact been filed. HC clarified that, under s.17 PMLA, a valid search and seizure does not require that the premises belong to a person already arraigned as an accused; it is sufficient that the authorised officer has "reason to believe" that proceeds of crime or related records are located there, and that the statutory preconditions are met. Finding that these conditions were satisfied and that the Tribunal misdirected itself in law, HC set aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2019 and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh adjudication after hearing both sides.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
