Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Broker trading-system "technical glitch" redefinition and narrowed incident-reporting regime for large IBT/STWT brokers requiring 2-hr notice and 14-w...
The dominant issue was whether the refund application was time-barred. Relying on its earlier ruling in an identical factual matrix, the Court held that rejection of the refund solely on limitation was contrary to facts and law because the refund claim had been filed within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
The dominant issue was whether the refund application was time-barred. Relying on its earlier ruling in an identical factual matrix, the Court held that rejection of the refund solely on limitation was contrary to facts and law because the refund claim had been filed within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned rejection order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, and the writ petition was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.