Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The HC dismissed the petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.
The HC dismissed the petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
