Tax determination against deceased proprietor invalid where no notice to legal representative; appeal rejected without addressing jurisdictional defec...
Revocation of GST registration and permission to file blocked returns; conditional defreezing of bank accounts after security and instalment applicati...
Right to access seized electronic evidence: impugned adjudication treated as additional show cause notice, remand for fresh hearing and return of mate...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6381 to 6400 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Challenge to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act focused on whether the arresting officer had 'reasons to believe' and whether statutory safeguards were followed; court applied the limited judicial review standard requiring manifest arbitrariness or gross non compliance and found procedural safeguards complied with, tangible material (cash, jewellery, digital devices, recorded statements and communications) supported the officer's reasons to believe, and remand orders need not be quashed. On proceeds of crime and the independence of the money laundering offence, the court held that property derived from scheduled offences may constitute proceeds of crime and that possession or concealment can sustain independent money laundering proceedings, so PMLA liability did not require prior arraignment in predicate FIRs.
Challenge to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act focused on whether the arresting officer had 'reasons to believe' and whether statutory safeguards were followed; court applied the limited judicial review standard requiring manifest arbitrariness or gross non compliance and found procedural safeguards complied with, tangible material (cash, jewellery, digital devices, recorded statements and communications) supported the officer's reasons to believe, and remand orders need not be quashed. On proceeds of crime and the independence of the money laundering offence, the court held that property derived from scheduled offences may constitute proceeds of crime and that possession or concealment can sustain independent money laundering proceedings, so PMLA liability did not require prior arraignment in predicate FIRs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.