Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
