Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Presumption of service of a statutory demand notice was not upheld where the postal endorsement of the addressee being absent for seven days, without more, did not prove deemed service and the complainant led no further evidence to dislodge the defence of absence due to illness at home. The court also held that the statutory presumption under Section 139 was rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities because the alleged loan transaction was not reliably proved: the date of advance was unspecified, no written agreement existed, and the defence that the cheques related to a chit-fund business was found probable. Section 138 was therefore not attracted and the acquittal was affirmed.
Presumption of service of a statutory demand notice was not upheld where the postal endorsement of the addressee being absent for seven days, without more, did not prove deemed service and the complainant led no further evidence to dislodge the defence of absence due to illness at home. The court also held that the statutory presumption under Section 139 was rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities because the alleged loan transaction was not reliably proved: the date of advance was unspecified, no written agreement existed, and the defence that the cheques related to a chit-fund business was found probable. Section 138 was therefore not attracted and the acquittal was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.