Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
