Reopening Assessments invalid where satisfaction and jurisdictional approval are absent for third party seized material, leading to quashing of assess...
Benami property exclusion from the insolvency estate: Benami Act proceedings preclude IBC tribunals from reopening attachments or treating such assets...
Exclusion of limitation period: pandemic suspension plus debtor acknowledgement can extend limitation, requiring fresh factfinding on guarantee invoca...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5861 to 5880 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice is not barred in all cases and may be invoked where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, non-application of mind or breach of natural justice; the High Court's refusal to entertain the challenge on maintainability alone was therefore unjustified. Under Section 37A FEMA, seizure depends on a substantive "reason to believe" that the foreign asset is held in contravention of Section 4, and refusal by the Competent Authority to confirm seizure is a considered finding that the threshold was not met. The High Court and the final adjudication order were set aside because they proceeded as if seizure had been confirmed and impaired the pending departmental appeal; the matter was restored to the show cause stage, with the appeal to be decided first.
Writ jurisdiction against a show cause notice is not barred in all cases and may be invoked where there is patent lack of jurisdiction, abuse of process, non-application of mind or breach of natural justice; the High Court's refusal to entertain the challenge on maintainability alone was therefore unjustified. Under Section 37A FEMA, seizure depends on a substantive "reason to believe" that the foreign asset is held in contravention of Section 4, and refusal by the Competent Authority to confirm seizure is a considered finding that the threshold was not met. The High Court and the final adjudication order were set aside because they proceeded as if seizure had been confirmed and impaired the pending departmental appeal; the matter was restored to the show cause stage, with the appeal to be decided first.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
