Allocation of registration charges: contractual clause overriding statutory presumption allowed as deduction against capital gain after unrebutted doc...
Expenditure tied to investments yielding exempt income restricted to attributable costs; broader disallowance disallowed and adjustments to WDV and mi...
Admissibility of Investigative Statements invalidated reliance on coerced emails and valuation redetermination, resulting in set aside of penalties an...
Classification of printed technical documents: specific Chapter 49.01 entry prevails, enabling claimed customs exemptions for imported manuals and rep...
This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under...
Limitation period commencement and procedural inquiry rules: identity-based limitation upheld; complaints by authorised public servants need not attract mandatory inquiry.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under drug laws, focusing on limitation, procedural inquiry under Section 202 vis-a -vis Section 200 proviso for complaints by public servants, cognizance by an authorised inspector, and vicarious liability of company officers. It concludes the limitation period began when the offender's identity was established by the inspector, so the complaint was timely; a magistrate need not mandatorily postpone process under Section 202 where an authorised public servant lodged the complaint; and factual questions whether directors were 'in charge' for vicarious liability are not amenable to determination at the quashing stage and must await trial.
This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under drug laws, focusing on limitation, procedural inquiry under Section 202 vis-a -vis Section 200 proviso for complaints by public servants, cognizance by an authorised inspector, and vicarious liability of company officers. It concludes the limitation period began when the offender's identity was established by the inspector, so the complaint was timely; a magistrate need not mandatorily postpone process under Section 202 where an authorised public servant lodged the complaint; and factual questions whether directors were 'in charge' for vicarious liability are not amenable to determination at the quashing stage and must await trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
