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 held that the arrest of the Applicant for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i), and 132(2) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act was illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The DGGI failed to prove that the Applicant was informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of detention, as mandated. Consequently, the Applicant's custodial detention was declared unlawful. The court granted regular bail upon the Applicant executing a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Pune. The bail application was accordingly allowed.
The HC held that the arrest of the Applicant for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(i), and 132(2) read with Section 132(5) of the CGST Act was illegal due to non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The DGGI failed to prove that the Applicant was informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of detention, as mandated. Consequently, the Applicant's custodial detention was declared unlawful. The court granted regular bail upon the Applicant executing a P.R. bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Pune. The bail application was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
