Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence to commit that case to the PMLA Special Court, and the court has no discretion to refuse transfer on grounds of delay or an advanced stage of trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that the statutory scheme mandates a common competent Special Court for the money-laundering complaint and the connected predicate offence. On the special facts, the predicate offence court was also a designated PMLA Special Court and therefore competent to try both matters, so the PMLA complaint was directed to be transferred there, while the broader jurisdictional question was left open.
Section 44(1)(c) of the PMLA requires the court taking cognizance of the scheduled offence to commit that case to the PMLA Special Court, and the court has no discretion to refuse transfer on grounds of delay or an advanced stage of trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the High Court held that the statutory scheme mandates a common competent Special Court for the money-laundering complaint and the connected predicate offence. On the special facts, the predicate offence court was also a designated PMLA Special Court and therefore competent to try both matters, so the PMLA complaint was directed to be transferred there, while the broader jurisdictional question was left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.