Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
The Supreme Court held that amounts repayable after a specified period, with promised quarterly interest, fell within the wide definition of "deposit" under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act. It further held that Section 2(d) uses expansive language and includes private persons receiving such deposits, so respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were financial establishments for MPID Act purposes. Prior failure of IPC-based proceedings and the civil character of the transaction did not bar recourse under Section 3, because the MPID Act provides an independent statutory remedy operating in a distinct field. The High Court's contrary view was set aside.
The Supreme Court held that amounts repayable after a specified period, with promised quarterly interest, fell within the wide definition of "deposit" under Section 2(c) of the MPID Act. It further held that Section 2(d) uses expansive language and includes private persons receiving such deposits, so respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were financial establishments for MPID Act purposes. Prior failure of IPC-based proceedings and the civil character of the transaction did not bar recourse under Section 3, because the MPID Act provides an independent statutory remedy operating in a distinct field. The High Court's contrary view was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
