Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Bail was granted in a GST prosecution for alleged fraudulent input tax credit because continued custody was found unwarranted on a cumulative assessment of bail factors. The Court relied on the petitioner's four months in custody, absence of criminal antecedents, the essentially documentary nature of the prosecution case, and the absence of material showing risk of tampering, witness influence, or non-cooperation. It also noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon and that the right to speedy trial is protected under Article 21. The Court held that economic offence allegations alone did not justify further incarceration and directed release on conditions to secure presence and protect the trial.
Bail was granted in a GST prosecution for alleged fraudulent input tax credit because continued custody was found unwarranted on a cumulative assessment of bail factors. The Court relied on the petitioner's four months in custody, absence of criminal antecedents, the essentially documentary nature of the prosecution case, and the absence of material showing risk of tampering, witness influence, or non-cooperation. It also noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon and that the right to speedy trial is protected under Article 21. The Court held that economic offence allegations alone did not justify further incarceration and directed release on conditions to secure presence and protect the trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.