Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment cannot rest solely on an audit party's opinion; reassessment under Section 147/148 is impermissible and power of revision shou...
Tested party selection: functional analysis identified the least complex unit as the appropriate tested party, altering the transfer pricing adjustmen...
In a prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act, the High Court held that pre-trial custody must remain exceptional because liberty cannot be curtailed on a punitive basis before conviction. Bail was granted after noting that the maximum sentence was five years, the matter was triable by a Magistrate, investigation was complete, complaint had been filed, there was no criminal antecedent or material showing risk of tampering, intimidation, flight, or non-cooperation, and the case was largely documentary. The Court also considered that charge had not been framed and trial was unlikely to conclude soon, so continued detention would amount to punitive custody rather than securing the trial.
In a prosecution under Section 132 of the CGST Act, the High Court held that pre-trial custody must remain exceptional because liberty cannot be curtailed on a punitive basis before conviction. Bail was granted after noting that the maximum sentence was five years, the matter was triable by a Magistrate, investigation was complete, complaint had been filed, there was no criminal antecedent or material showing risk of tampering, intimidation, flight, or non-cooperation, and the case was largely documentary. The Court also considered that charge had not been framed and trial was unlikely to conclude soon, so continued detention would amount to punitive custody rather than securing the trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
