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 for bail and remanded the petitioner in custody. The court held there existed reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed offences under s.132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for wrongfully availing and passing on ineligible ITC totalling Rs. 19.76 crores, exceeding the statutory threshold. A clerical error in the arrest authorization did not vitiate the reasons to believe, which were otherwise specific and reasoned. As investigation remained incomplete, several co-accused were absconding, and there was a real risk of evidence tampering, the court concluded that bail would impede the probe and therefore refused relief.
The HC dismissed the petition for bail and remanded the petitioner in custody. The court held there existed reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed offences under s.132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for wrongfully availing and passing on ineligible ITC totalling Rs. 19.76 crores, exceeding the statutory threshold. A clerical error in the arrest authorization did not vitiate the reasons to believe, which were otherwise specific and reasoned. As investigation remained incomplete, several co-accused were absconding, and there was a real risk of evidence tampering, the court concluded that bail would impede the probe and therefore refused relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.