Reversal of input tax credit in proportion to exempt supply: specificity of show-cause notice required; order set aside, fresh proceedings allowed wit...
Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Absence of assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act did not bar criminal prosecution under Section 132, because those provisions concern assessment of the alleged violation and any favourable finding there may only bear on the prosecution. Bail was then granted because pre-trial detention is not punitive, the presumption of innocence continued to operate, the case rested mainly on documentary and electronic material, investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, the offence was triable by a Magistrate, the maximum sentence was limited, and no exceptional circumstance showed risk of tampering, intimidation, absconding, or subversion of justice.
Absence of assessment proceedings under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act did not bar criminal prosecution under Section 132, because those provisions concern assessment of the alleged violation and any favourable finding there may only bear on the prosecution. Bail was then granted because pre-trial detention is not punitive, the presumption of innocence continued to operate, the case rested mainly on documentary and electronic material, investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, the offence was triable by a Magistrate, the maximum sentence was limited, and no exceptional circumstance showed risk of tampering, intimidation, absconding, or subversion of justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.