Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
The dominant legal issue is whether the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E is mandatory and if judicial relief can permit conditional compliance; the court affirmed the pre-deposit requirement is mandatory and CESTAT acquires jurisdiction only on compliance, but recognised that Article 226 relief may be exercised where financial hardship is pleaded to prevent appellate rights becoming illusory, and therefore permitted staged instalmental compliance; outcome: the appellant was allowed to deposit the directed sum in instalments, CESTAT to entertain the appeal on production of the initial instalment, and final adjudication to be pronounced only after full deposit, with the Single Judge's order set aside.
The dominant legal issue is whether the statutory pre-deposit under Section 129E is mandatory and if judicial relief can permit conditional compliance; the court affirmed the pre-deposit requirement is mandatory and CESTAT acquires jurisdiction only on compliance, but recognised that Article 226 relief may be exercised where financial hardship is pleaded to prevent appellate rights becoming illusory, and therefore permitted staged instalmental compliance; outcome: the appellant was allowed to deposit the directed sum in instalments, CESTAT to entertain the appeal on production of the initial instalment, and final adjudication to be pronounced only after full deposit, with the Single Judge's order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
