TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court denies anticipatory bail in tax credit fraud case, orders custodial interrogation for fake entities</h1> <h3>Ronak Soni Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr.</h3> Ronak Soni Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. - TMI Issues:1. Application for grant of anticipatory bail rejected by Sessions Judge.2. Applicant seeking anticipatory bail in High Court.3. Allegation of passing illegal tax credit from non-existent companies.4. Interpretation of GST Act section 25 for registration procedure.5. Argument against custodial interrogation due to bailable offense and lack of liability assessment.6. Claim that companies involved have valid GST registration.7. Need for custodial interrogation to investigate fake companies.Analysis:1. The applicant's plea for anticipatory bail was turned down by the Sessions Judge, leading to the appeal before the High Court seeking the same relief.2. The revenue alleges that the applicant passed illegal tax credit from companies that exist only on paper, raising concerns about the authenticity of transactions.3. The applicant's counsel argues that registration under the GST Act is granted based on KYC documents and emphasizes the need for liability assessment before custodial interrogation.4. The contention is made that if the alleged illegal tax credit is below a certain threshold, the offense is bailable, and the absence of liability assessment precludes custodial interrogation.5. The revenue's counsel justifies custodial interrogation to uncover the individuals behind the fake companies used to obtain illegal tax credit, emphasizing the necessity of further investigation.6. The High Court acknowledges that the applicant transacted with companies holding valid GST registration but notes that physical verification revealed these companies do not exist.7. Given the discrepancy between the claimed transactions and the non-existence of the companies involved, the Court finds merit in the revenue's argument for custodial interrogation to ascertain the operators of the fake entities, leading to the rejection of the anticipatory bail application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
