Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
For vicarious liability of a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct of business at the relevant time; mere designation as director, or signing board resolutions alone, is insufficient. On that basis, the summoning order and consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed. The Court also clarified that a prior revision does not, by itself, bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which remains available to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court's view that Section 482 could not be invoked after revision was held legally erroneous.
For vicarious liability of a director under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complaint must specifically aver that the person was in charge of and responsible for the company's conduct of business at the relevant time; mere designation as director, or signing board resolutions alone, is insufficient. On that basis, the summoning order and consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed. The Court also clarified that a prior revision does not, by itself, bar the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, which remains available to prevent miscarriage of justice. The High Court's view that Section 482 could not be invoked after revision was held legally erroneous.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
