Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The High Court rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicants u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the application was not maintainable as the summons were issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the power of the appropriate officer to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry. The Court distinguished this from Section 69, which deals with the power to arrest a delinquent person. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr, which held that provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked if summons are issued u/s 69. The Court found no significant difference between Sections 69 and 70 and held that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
The High Court rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicants u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court held that the application was not maintainable as the summons were issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the power of the appropriate officer to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents in an inquiry. The Court distinguished this from Section 69, which deals with the power to arrest a delinquent person. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr, which held that provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked if summons are issued u/s 69. The Court found no significant difference between Sections 69 and 70 and held that the application for anticipatory bail was not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
