Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
HC granted interim bail to petitioner arrested under Section 132(1) of Assam GST Act, 2017 for allegedly passing Input Tax Credit on invoices without actual supply of goods. Court held arrest procedurally infirm due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 41/41-A CrPC corresponding to Section 35(3) BNSS. Though grounds of arrest were communicated under Section 69 CGST Act, authorities failed to communicate "reasons to believe" to petitioner, which constitutes substantive safeguard rather than mere formality. Court noted petitioner remained in judicial custody since 10.06.2025 without any prayer for custodial interrogation or police remand by authorities. Non-communication of foundational reasons vitiated arrest process and undermined legal safeguards, rendering arrest procedurally defective warranting interim bail relief.
HC granted interim bail to petitioner arrested under Section 132(1) of Assam GST Act, 2017 for allegedly passing Input Tax Credit on invoices without actual supply of goods. Court held arrest procedurally infirm due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 41/41-A CrPC corresponding to Section 35(3) BNSS. Though grounds of arrest were communicated under Section 69 CGST Act, authorities failed to communicate "reasons to believe" to petitioner, which constitutes substantive safeguard rather than mere formality. Court noted petitioner remained in judicial custody since 10.06.2025 without any prayer for custodial interrogation or police remand by authorities. Non-communication of foundational reasons vitiated arrest process and undermined legal safeguards, rendering arrest procedurally defective warranting interim bail relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.