TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint, and (ii) whether the accused was entitled to bail.
Issue (i): Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.
Analysis: The complaint did not disclose any transaction of input tax credit within the territorial limits of Gurugram. It was accepted by both sides that the firms were registered in Delhi and that the competent forum would be the courts having jurisdiction there. On that admitted position, the court found that it was not competent to try the case.
Conclusion: The court held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case.
Issue (ii): Whether the accused was entitled to bail.
Analysis: The accused had remained in custody since 07.10.2019. The court also took note of the accused's age, medical history, and the prevailing COVID-19 situation, and considered continued custody unnecessary in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The bail application was allowed and the accused was admitted to bail on the terms imposed by the court.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings resulted in a finding of no territorial jurisdiction in the Gurugram court, and the accused was released on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the admitted facts show that no part of the alleged taxable transaction arose within the territorial limits of the court, that court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.
TaxTMI 
