Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., declined to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC through bogus invoices, attracting offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, Section 11 of the CST Act, and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Court noted that investigation is complete, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed, cognizance has been taken, charges have been framed, and the matter is fixed for prosecution evidence. As the accused did not challenge the order framing charge, it has attained finality. Holding that the scope of interference at this stage is extremely limited and no exceptional ground is made out, the petition was dismissed.
HC, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., declined to quash the FIR and criminal proceedings arising from alleged wrongful availment and utilisation of ITC through bogus invoices, attracting offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act, Section 11 of the CST Act, and Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The Court noted that investigation is complete, a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed, cognizance has been taken, charges have been framed, and the matter is fixed for prosecution evidence. As the accused did not challenge the order framing charge, it has attained finality. Holding that the scope of interference at this stage is extremely limited and no exceptional ground is made out, the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
