Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Challenge concerns intimation under Rule 142(1A) and Rule 142(2A) regarding liability for sale of mineral rough stone and gravel. The HC found the writ petition not maintainable because the petitioner filed a representation and participated in the proceedings; consequence: petition dismissed. Separately, the court required that any coercive action be preceded by consideration of the petitioners representation, an opportunity of hearing, and issuance of a reasoned order; consequence: respondent directed to consider the reply dated 12.12.2025 on merits, afford hearing, and pass a reasoned order before taking coercive steps.
Challenge concerns intimation under Rule 142(1A) and Rule 142(2A) regarding liability for sale of mineral rough stone and gravel. The HC found the writ petition not maintainable because the petitioner filed a representation and participated in the proceedings; consequence: petition dismissed. Separately, the court required that any coercive action be preceded by consideration of the petitioners representation, an opportunity of hearing, and issuance of a reasoned order; consequence: respondent directed to consider the reply dated 12.12.2025 on merits, afford hearing, and pass a reasoned order before taking coercive steps.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
