Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Provisional attachment under PMLA can extend to property of equivalent value where the original proceeds of crime are unavailable, even if the attached property was acquired before the alleged offence; the attachment was upheld on that basis. Pendency of a challenge to the predicate offence before the Supreme Court did not by itself invalidate the attachment, because the predicate offence had not been quashed and the interim stay did not extinguish it. The Tribunal also held that provisional attachment is not confined to a person formally named as an accused in the predicate offence, if the person is otherwise involved in the offence or is a recipient of proceeds of crime. The attachment was sustained, subject to the final outcome before the Supreme Court.
Provisional attachment under PMLA can extend to property of equivalent value where the original proceeds of crime are unavailable, even if the attached property was acquired before the alleged offence; the attachment was upheld on that basis. Pendency of a challenge to the predicate offence before the Supreme Court did not by itself invalidate the attachment, because the predicate offence had not been quashed and the interim stay did not extinguish it. The Tribunal also held that provisional attachment is not confined to a person formally named as an accused in the predicate offence, if the person is otherwise involved in the offence or is a recipient of proceeds of crime. The attachment was sustained, subject to the final outcome before the Supreme Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
