Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
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.