Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Cross country pipeline classification and ITC entitlement: pipelines outside factory treated as immovable, ITC disallowed under Section 17 restriction...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6181 to 6200 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
