Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed the applicant's bail application and ordered release on furnishing appropriate surety. The applicant, accused of embezzling funds exceeding Rs.120 crores through fictitious suppliers to facilitate illegal sales and GST evasion, was held to face a prosecution principally reliant on documentary and electronic evidence, with investigation completed and trial likely to be protracted. Although the offence under s.132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act is cognizable and non-bailable, it carries a maximum sentence of five years and is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has no antecedent criminal record and there is no demonstrable risk of tampering with documentary proof; accordingly, applying settled principles governing custodial bail, release on bail was directed.
HC allowed the applicant's bail application and ordered release on furnishing appropriate surety. The applicant, accused of embezzling funds exceeding Rs.120 crores through fictitious suppliers to facilitate illegal sales and GST evasion, was held to face a prosecution principally reliant on documentary and electronic evidence, with investigation completed and trial likely to be protracted. Although the offence under s.132(1)(i) C.G.S.T. Act is cognizable and non-bailable, it carries a maximum sentence of five years and is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant has no antecedent criminal record and there is no demonstrable risk of tampering with documentary proof; accordingly, applying settled principles governing custodial bail, release on bail was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
