Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
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...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
641 to 660 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the 180-day period for provisional attachment was saved by exclusion of the Covid-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, so the impugned orders were within time. It rejected challenges to maintainability, finding the predicate offence and money-laundering allegations supported by the FIR, ECIR, money trail, statements, and unexplained diversion of funds, while the Supreme Court interim order did not bar attachment proceedings. It further held that the appellants failed to prove a legitimate source for jewellery and immovable properties in family members' names, and that Section 8(3) empowers retention or continuation of freezing without a prior Section 20 order. All appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the 180-day period for provisional attachment was saved by exclusion of the Covid-19 period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, so the impugned orders were within time. It rejected challenges to maintainability, finding the predicate offence and money-laundering allegations supported by the FIR, ECIR, money trail, statements, and unexplained diversion of funds, while the Supreme Court interim order did not bar attachment proceedings. It further held that the appellants failed to prove a legitimate source for jewellery and immovable properties in family members' names, and that Section 8(3) empowers retention or continuation of freezing without a prior Section 20 order. All appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
