Fraud classification show-cause notices founded on inconclusive forensic audit material cannot sustain action, permitting fresh proceedings on conclus...
Appellate enhancement limits protect against new income sources, while documented credits and prior-year investments resist unexplained-income additio...
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is satisfied because the principal cause of action-the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank account-arose within the Court's territorial limits, permitting a writ petition challenging that freeze. The court applied the principle that a legal right infringed within territorial limits supports jurisdiction and distinguished prior authority where only a minor part of cause of action arose locally. The order holds that debit-freezing directed by police on January 6, 2025, lacked requisite magistrate-sanctioned seizure or attachment and is therefore quashed; the bank must restore account operation.
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) is satisfied because the principal cause of action-the debit freezing of the petitioner's bank account-arose within the Court's territorial limits, permitting a writ petition challenging that freeze. The court applied the principle that a legal right infringed within territorial limits supports jurisdiction and distinguished prior authority where only a minor part of cause of action arose locally. The order holds that debit-freezing directed by police on January 6, 2025, lacked requisite magistrate-sanctioned seizure or attachment and is therefore quashed; the bank must restore account operation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
