Imported analyser diagnostic cartridges treated as accessories with analyser system, not standalone diagnostic reagents; extended limitation and penal...
Steel-timber construction shuttering/formwork tariff classification dispute: essential character held steel, classified as shuttering under Heading 73...
Family-linked property purchases using fabricated loan agreements and benami-style arrangements held to be crime proceeds; attachment upheld, appeal d...
The HC held that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Appellant-Board's Adjudicating Officer was validly founded, clarifying that under Rule 5(1) it is the AO who must first inquire into and determine whether a violation under Section 15-I, including Section 15A(b), has occurred. The Single Judge's view that the notice was issued solely for imposition of penalty without prior formation of opinion was found erroneous and set aside. Concurrently, the HC affirmed that the PIT Regulations do not require a prior order under Regulation 14 or exhaustion of remedial measures thereunder as a condition precedent to invoking adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act.
The HC held that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Appellant-Board's Adjudicating Officer was validly founded, clarifying that under Rule 5(1) it is the AO who must first inquire into and determine whether a violation under Section 15-I, including Section 15A(b), has occurred. The Single Judge's view that the notice was issued solely for imposition of penalty without prior formation of opinion was found erroneous and set aside. Concurrently, the HC affirmed that the PIT Regulations do not require a prior order under Regulation 14 or exhaustion of remedial measures thereunder as a condition precedent to invoking adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
