Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Changing Face of Criminal Procedure in Income Tax Offence Prosecution : Clause 498 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 280D of Income-tax Act, 1961

      15 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 498 Application of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to proceedings before Special Court.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are statutory provisions that govern the procedural framework for the prosecution of offences under the respective Acts before Special Courts. Both provisions address the application of general criminal procedural laws to proceedings under the Income Tax regime, the appointment and qualification of prosecutors, and the status of such prosecutors before Special Courts. While Section 280D, introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, invoked the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 proposes to substitute the CrPC with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), reflecting a significant legislative shift. This commentary provides a comprehensive analysis of Clause 498, its objectives, structure, practical implications, and a clause-by-clause comparison with Section 280D, highlighting the legal and policy implications of this transition.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of both Clause 498 and Section 280D is to establish a clear procedural framework for the prosecution of income tax offences before Special Courts. These provisions ensure that proceedings are conducted in accordance with established criminal procedure, that prosecutors are appointed with requisite qualifications, and that the administration of justice is streamlined and consistent with broader criminal law principles.

      The legislative intent behind these provisions can be summarized as follows:

      • To provide procedural uniformity and legal certainty in the prosecution of tax offences.
      • To ensure that the prosecution is conducted by qualified legal professionals with adequate experience and knowledge of law.
      • To enable the Central Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutors for complex or significant cases requiring specialized attention.
      • To align the prosecution mechanism under the Income Tax law with the prevailing general criminal procedure statute (CrPC or BNSS).

      The shift from the CrPC to the BNSS in Clause 498 is part of a broader legislative and policy initiative to modernize and indigenize India's criminal procedure framework. The BNSS, enacted in 2023, is intended to replace the colonial-era CrPC with a more contemporary, citizen-centric code. Consequently, Clause 498's reference to the BNSS signifies the legislature's intent to ensure that tax prosecutions are conducted under the most current procedural law, thereby harmonizing tax enforcement with the evolving criminal justice system.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Application of BNSS to Special Court Proceedings

      Clause 498(1) provides that, unless otherwise specified in the Income Tax Bill, the provisions of the BNSS, including those relating to bail and bonds, shall apply to proceedings before a Special Court. Furthermore, the person conducting the prosecution before the Special Court is deemed to be a Public Prosecutor.

      This sub-clause establishes two important legal norms:

      • Application of BNSS: All procedural aspects, such as investigation, trial, evidence, bail, and other matters, are to be governed by the BNSS, unless the Income Tax Bill provides otherwise. This ensures procedural consistency and leverages the comprehensive framework of the BNSS for tax prosecutions.
      • Status of Prosecutor: The prosecutor in such proceedings is statutorily deemed to be a Public Prosecutor, thereby conferring upon them all the rights, duties, and protections available to Public Prosecutors under the BNSS.

      Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors

      Clause 498(2) empowers the Central Government to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for any specific case or group of cases. This discretionary power is significant in cases involving complex, high-profile, or sensitive tax offences, where specialized legal expertise may be required.

      The provision allows the government flexibility in resource allocation and ensures that particularly challenging cases can be handled by prosecutors with specialized skills, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of enforcement.

      Qualification Criteria for Prosecutors

      Clause 498(3) prescribes that no person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor under this section unless they have been in practice as an advocate for at least seven years and possess special knowledge of law.

      This clause ensures the appointment of experienced and competent legal professionals, which is critical for the prosecution of complex tax offences. The requirement of "special knowledge of law" further underscores the necessity for expertise, not merely experience, thereby raising the standard of prosecution.

      Deeming Provision and Reference to BNSS

      Clause 498(4) provides that every person appointed as a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor under this section shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of section 2(v) of the BNSS, and the provisions of the BNSS shall apply accordingly.

      This deeming provision ensures that all legal consequences, powers, and duties associated with Public Prosecutors under the BNSS are automatically extended to persons appointed under Clause 498. It also eliminates any potential ambiguity regarding the legal status or authority of such prosecutors.

        Comparative Analysis with Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961

        1. Statutory Reference: BNSS vs. CrPC

        The most significant distinction between Clause 498 and Section 280D is the replacement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The BNSS, as a successor to the CrPC, is intended to modernize and adapt criminal procedure to contemporary Indian realities, emphasizing citizen-centric justice, digital processes, and streamlined investigation and trial mechanisms.

        While both provisions ensure that the general criminal procedural law applies to tax prosecutions, the adoption of the BNSS in Clause 498 marks a legislative update reflecting the government's intention to keep the procedural framework current and consistent with the overarching criminal law regime.

        2. Structure and Content: Substantive Parity

        A clause-by-clause comparison reveals that the structure and substantive content of Clause 498 and Section 280D are largely identical, with the primary difference being the statutory reference (BNSS vs. CrPC) and the corresponding definitions sections (section 2(v) of BNSS vs. section 2(u) of CrPC).

        ProvisionClause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961
        Application of Procedural LawBNSS, 2023CrPC, 1973
        Scope (Bail, Bonds, etc.)Explicitly includedExplicitly included
        Deeming Prosecutor as Public ProsecutorYesYes
        Appointment of Special Public ProsecutorPermitted for any case/class/groupPermitted for any case/class/group
        Qualification Criteria7 years advocacy + special knowledge of law7 years advocacy + special knowledge of law
        Deeming Provision (Definition)Section 2(v) of BNSS 2023Section 2(u) of CrPC

        3. Ambiguities and Interpretational Issues

        Both provisions are drafted with clarity, but some potential interpretational issues may arise:

        • "Special knowledge of law": The phrase is not defined and may give rise to disputes regarding the precise qualifications required. Judicial interpretation or executive clarification may be necessary.
        • Transition Issues: The transition from CrPC to BNSS may create procedural uncertainties for cases initiated under the old regime but pending at the time of enactment. Transitional provisions or judicial clarification may be required to address such scenarios.
        • Overlap with Other Laws: In cases involving offences under multiple statutes, the interplay between BNSS and other special laws may require careful harmonization to avoid conflicts.

        4. Unique Features and Policy Implications

        The adoption of the BNSS in Clause 498 is a unique feature, reflecting the government's commitment to updating the legal framework in line with new legislative developments. The BNSS introduces several innovations, such as digital procedures, witness protection, and enhanced victim rights, which may indirectly impact tax prosecutions.

        Additionally, the explicit provision for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors in both provisions ensures that complex or high-value cases can be prosecuted with the requisite expertise, thereby strengthening enforcement.

        Practical Implications

        For Stakeholders

        • Accused Persons: Accused individuals in tax prosecution cases will be subject to the procedures, rights, and remedies available under the BNSS, including those relating to bail, trial procedure, and appeals.
        • Prosecutors: Prosecutors must meet higher qualification standards and are endowed with the powers and responsibilities of Public Prosecutors under the BNSS, ensuring professional conduct and accountability.
        • Regulators and Enforcement Agencies: Tax authorities and enforcement agencies must align their procedures and case preparation with the requirements of the BNSS, necessitating training and process adjustments.
        • Legal Community: Advocates seeking appointment as prosecutors must possess at least seven years' experience and special legal knowledge, potentially raising the bar for appointments.

        Compliance and Procedural Impact

        • All procedural steps in prosecution, from investigation to trial and sentencing, will be governed by the BNSS, requiring adaptation by all stakeholders.
        • Appointment processes for prosecutors must ensure compliance with the enhanced qualification criteria.
        • Special Public Prosecutors can be appointed for complex or sensitive cases, providing flexibility and specialization in prosecution.

        Conclusion

        Clause 498 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 is a forward-looking statutory provision that seeks to align the prosecution of tax offences with the latest criminal procedure code, the BNSS, 2023. Its structure and content are substantially similar to Section 280D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with the key difference being the replacement of the CrPC with the BNSS. This change is emblematic of a broader legislative trend towards modernization and indigenization of India's criminal justice system.

        The provision maintains high standards for the appointment of prosecutors, ensures procedural uniformity, and provides flexibility for the appointment of Special Public Prosecutors. While the transition to the BNSS may necessitate adjustments in practice and procedure, it is expected to enhance the efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness of tax prosecutions. Areas that may require further clarification include the definition of "special knowledge of law" and the handling of transitional cases.

        Overall, Clause 498 represents a significant but evolutionary change in the procedural landscape of tax prosecutions, reflecting the legislature's intent to keep the law current, effective, and in harmony with broader legal reforms.


        Full Text:

        Clause 498 Application of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to proceedings before Special Court.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax