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...
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the material, essential and integral cause of action arises within the forum, and the doctrine of forum conveniens may justify refusal even if some connection with Delhi exists. The Court held that the petitioners' residence, the searches and seizures, the ECIR, the investigating officers, and the PMLA proceedings were all centred in Gurugram, so Delhi was not the appropriate forum. It further held that the respondent-authority's location or the mere registration of the predicate offence in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction, because money-laundering is an independent offence. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on whether the material, essential and integral cause of action arises within the forum, and the doctrine of forum conveniens may justify refusal even if some connection with Delhi exists. The Court held that the petitioners' residence, the searches and seizures, the ECIR, the investigating officers, and the PMLA proceedings were all centred in Gurugram, so Delhi was not the appropriate forum. It further held that the respondent-authority's location or the mere registration of the predicate offence in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction, because money-laundering is an independent offence. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.