Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
A cheque originally issued as security can support a Section 138 prosecution if a legally enforceable liability exists on the date of presentation; once execution of a signed cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate for the payee, and the drawer must rebut them at trial. On the pleadings, emails and repayment discussions prima facie indicated a subsisting liability, so the security-cheque defence did not justify quashing. For company liability, specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for the business are sufficient at the threshold; a managing director and cheque signatory may be proceeded against, while the non-signatory director was not immune where adequate allegations were made. The complaint was allowed to proceed.
A cheque originally issued as security can support a Section 138 prosecution if a legally enforceable liability exists on the date of presentation; once execution of a signed cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate for the payee, and the drawer must rebut them at trial. On the pleadings, emails and repayment discussions prima facie indicated a subsisting liability, so the security-cheque defence did not justify quashing. For company liability, specific averments that directors were in charge of and responsible for the business are sufficient at the threshold; a managing director and cheque signatory may be proceeded against, while the non-signatory director was not immune where adequate allegations were made. The complaint was allowed to proceed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
