Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
The dominant issue was whether an investigating agency has statutory authority under s. 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to attach or debit-freeze a bank account. Relying on settled law under the corresponding seizure power in s. 102 CrPC, as explained in precedent, the court held that police may seize only property that is stolen or found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence; conversely, property not meeting this threshold cannot be seized. Since s. 106 BNSS does not confer an attachment/debit-freezing power over bank accounts, the impugned debit-freeze orders were quashed and set aside. - HC
The dominant issue was whether an investigating agency has statutory authority under s. 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to attach or debit-freeze a bank account. Relying on settled law under the corresponding seizure power in s. 102 CrPC, as explained in precedent, the court held that police may seize only property that is stolen or found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence; conversely, property not meeting this threshold cannot be seized. Since s. 106 BNSS does not confer an attachment/debit-freezing power over bank accounts, the impugned debit-freeze orders were quashed and set aside. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
