Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
