Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
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.