Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
This is a judgment by the High Court granting regular bail to the petitioner accused of offenses u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the HGST Act, 2017, related to wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court considered that the petitioner has already undergone substantial incarceration, co-accused have been granted bail, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The court relied on the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the need to minimize pre-conviction detention. The court also cited precedents emphasizing that bail is the general rule, and denial of bail should not be based solely on pending cases or convictions. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate.
This is a judgment by the High Court granting regular bail to the petitioner accused of offenses u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 132(1)(b) and (c) of the HGST Act, 2017, related to wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The court considered that the petitioner has already undergone substantial incarceration, co-accused have been granted bail, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. The court relied on the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the need to minimize pre-conviction detention. The court also cited precedents emphasizing that bail is the general rule, and denial of bail should not be based solely on pending cases or convictions. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.