Blog

The Criminal Revision Case filed u/s.397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – allowed by Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the order passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, dated 14.07.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.9157 of 2022 in S.C.No.74 of 2017 was set aside. As a sequel, Crl.M.P.No.9157 of 2022 in S.C.No.74 of 2017 filed by the petitioners before the trial Court was allowed and the trial Court is directed to release the subject property and also refund the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- deposited by the Pothys on the file of the trial Court.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras remanded the matter of dismissal order of the The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission back to the Commission, over ruling the Order dated 14.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1962 of 2014, to examine the matter and pass orders afresh in accordance with law.

Hon’ble HC of Gujrat observes “If the party approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exists good grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction.”

The Division Bench of the Hon”ble Madras High Court quashed the PMLA prosecution complaint qua Ramesh Pothy in S.C NO 74/2017 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge Chennai in Crl.OP no 2342 of 2022. The Hon’ble Court has held that “ —for mulcting criminal liability u/s 3 and 4 of the PMLA,the prosecution should place materials before the Court to show that the person has not only acquired the property by committing a scheduled offence, but,he should have projected that property as untainted. The petitioner was only a bonafide purchaser of the impugned property from the daughter of D.Sridhar… payment to the mother of Dhanalakshmi Sridhar, which has been reflected in the sale deed itself, cannot amount to an offence u/s 3 r/w 4 of the PMLA.

The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Crl op no 22869& 24151 of 2018 filed by C.S.Meenakshi,C.Natesan and Ashok Bajaj against the prosecution complaint filed by ED have observed that”For attracting penal provision of the PMLA ,there should be materials to show that the accused had committed a criminal activity………….. generated proceeds of crime and quashed the PMLA prosecution complaint in c.c no 12 of 2019 pending before the XIV the Additional Court for CBI cases.

Hon’ble High Court of Madras ordered copies of Statement recorded under Section 37 of FEMA to be provided to Petitioner in WP 20224, 20330, 20356 of 2021 under Article 226 of Constitution.

Hon’ble High Court of Madras ordered Directorate of Enforcement to furnish copies of statements to the petitioner obtained under Section 37 of FEMA in WP 20224, 20330, 20356 of 2021 under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Ramu Annamalai vs Directorate of Enforcement.

CANARA BANK – PMLA CASE – Crl. R.C. No. 448 of 2020 and Crl. M.P. No. 7507 of 2021 – ORDERED BY HIGH COUR OF MADRAS under Section 8 sub-section 7 of PMLA 2002.

In an historic and land mark judicial decision, the High Court of Madras ordered the return of the amounts to Canara Bank can be established by marking a copy of the order of this Court. In the result, this Criminal Revision stands dismissed in the above terms. No costs. Connected Crl.M.P. is closed.

SEEMA GARG Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENFORMENT – PMLA CASE – JUDGEMENT BY DIVISION BENCH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND BY SUPREME COURT – ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTIES IN VALUE EQUIVALENCE UNDER SECTION 2(U) OF PML ACT 2002.

A long persisting gloom over the trauma of attachment of properties, not directly involved with alleged Proceeds of Crime but attached by value equivalence under Sec. 2 (u) of PML Act 2002, is fully cleared by the verdict issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of India on 30.04.2021 by its judgement in Seema Garg Vs Deputy Director of Enforcement case.

VIJAY MALLYA – KINGFISHER AIRLINES – PMLA CASE – TRANSFER OF ATTACHED ASSETS TO BANKS – ORDERED BY SPECIAL COURT [PMLA] AND RELEASED BY ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE U/S 8(8) OF PMLA.

In an historic and landmark judicial decision, the Special Court – PMLA at Mumbai ordered restoration of properties to the Applicant Banks who suffered loss as a result of money-laundering by Kingfisher Airlines involving Vijay Mallya vide Order dated 24.05.2021 by The Special Judge to CBI, City Civil Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai which is the designated Special Court under Sec. 8 (8) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act [PMLA] 2002. This order empowered Enforcement Directorate to release the immovable properties, unpledged shares and pledged shares totally worth Rs. 4234.84 Crores.

This article examines the GST implications on refund of marriage hall rent, addressing the scenario where bookings are cancelled or amounts paid are refunded by the service provider.

Under the CGST Act, 2017, when services are not rendered or consideration is refunded, the question of refund of GST paid by the recipient arises. This involves procedural compliance under the relevant provisions of the GST Acts and Rules.

Sri Law Associates advises clients on all GST matters including refund claims, and has successfully represented taxpayers before GST authorities and the GST Appellate Authority.