Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Section 32A of the IBC was construed as protecting corporate debtor property only from the statutory trigger point after a qualifying change in control following approval of a resolution plan, and not as retrospectively nullifying a provisional attachment already made before such approval. The Tribunal held that reliance on Section 32A(1) was misplaced because the dispute concerned attachment of property, not prosecution, and that immunity under Section 32A depends on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including the status of the incoming person. The prior attachment under PMLA was therefore sustained, and the appeal challenging attachment and confirmation was dismissed.
Section 32A of the IBC was construed as protecting corporate debtor property only from the statutory trigger point after a qualifying change in control following approval of a resolution plan, and not as retrospectively nullifying a provisional attachment already made before such approval. The Tribunal held that reliance on Section 32A(1) was misplaced because the dispute concerned attachment of property, not prosecution, and that immunity under Section 32A depends on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including the status of the incoming person. The prior attachment under PMLA was therefore sustained, and the appeal challenging attachment and confirmation was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
