Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act were held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand higher than the amount proposed in the initiating notice, because the notice defines the scope of jurisdiction and cannot be expanded without amendment. The Tribunal also treated a unilateral demand letter as no valid show cause notice, since Section 28 requires a notice calling upon the noticee to answer the proposed demand before any recovery is fastened. In addition, adjudication after nearly twenty-three years was held to cause fatal prejudice and offend the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, so the impugned order was set aside.
Recovery proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act were held unsustainable where the adjudicating authority confirmed a demand higher than the amount proposed in the initiating notice, because the notice defines the scope of jurisdiction and cannot be expanded without amendment. The Tribunal also treated a unilateral demand letter as no valid show cause notice, since Section 28 requires a notice calling upon the noticee to answer the proposed demand before any recovery is fastened. In addition, adjudication after nearly twenty-three years was held to cause fatal prejudice and offend the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, so the impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
