Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)...
Appellant's ring-back tone service held OIDAR, taxable domestically for 01.07.2012-31.07.2016; liability confirmed, penalties vacated, remanded for re...
The HC held that the Single Judge's directions subjecting the SFIO's investigative report to prior judicial scrutiny, and reserving to the Court the prerogative to direct prosecution, were contrary to the statutory scheme and amounted to an impermissible arrogation of powers vested in the designated authority. The HC emphasized that once an investigation under the statute is initiated, its course and consequent actions must proceed strictly as mandated by law and cannot be interdicted or re-routed by judicial orders. Finding that the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 travelled beyond the scope of the governing Act, the HC set aside that order in entirety and disposed of the appeal.
The HC held that the Single Judge's directions subjecting the SFIO's investigative report to prior judicial scrutiny, and reserving to the Court the prerogative to direct prosecution, were contrary to the statutory scheme and amounted to an impermissible arrogation of powers vested in the designated authority. The HC emphasized that once an investigation under the statute is initiated, its course and consequent actions must proceed strictly as mandated by law and cannot be interdicted or re-routed by judicial orders. Finding that the impugned order dated 23.04.2024 travelled beyond the scope of the governing Act, the HC set aside that order in entirety and disposed of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
