TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution for offences under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The petitioner was one of the directors of the concerned company and the prosecution alleged large-scale tax evasion. The Court treated the alleged offence as a serious economic offence and noted the gravity of the accusation, the magnitude of the alleged evasion, and the earlier treatment of a similarly placed co-accused. In those circumstances, the Court found no sufficient ground to exercise bail discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Conclusion: Bail was declined and the application was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
