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" ?
The HC granted bail to the accused petitioner who was charged with creating fake firms, issuing invoices, and passing on input tax credit in violation of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The HC found that the prosecution heavily relied on statements recorded u/s 70, but failed to include those individuals as witnesses, depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine. Additionally, despite filing the complaint, the Department could not determine the amount of input tax credit claimed by beneficiaries after over a year of investigation. The HC noted that once a complaint is filed, no further evidence can be used against the accused. Considering the maximum punishment of five years and the accused's custody of five months, the HC allowed the bail application subject to conditions.
The HC granted bail to the accused petitioner who was charged with creating fake firms, issuing invoices, and passing on input tax credit in violation of Section 132 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The HC found that the prosecution heavily relied on statements recorded u/s 70, but failed to include those individuals as witnesses, depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine. Additionally, despite filing the complaint, the Department could not determine the amount of input tax credit claimed by beneficiaries after over a year of investigation. The HC noted that once a complaint is filed, no further evidence can be used against the accused. Considering the maximum punishment of five years and the accused's custody of five months, the HC allowed the bail application subject to conditions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
