Restriction of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A applies only to fraudulently or ineligible availed credit; mere wrongful recipient availment is insuffi...
Business reorganisation requires recognition of successor's modified return; draft orders against dissolved transferor quashed and fresh review direct...
Pre-commencement R&D deduction denied where business had not commenced; deeming benefit requires tangible start of manufacture or commercial exploitat...
High Court applied section 132 CGST classifications: offences with tax evasion up to five crores are non cognizable and compoundable under section 138, while evasion exceeding five crores is cognizable and non bailable and not compoundable; a five crore deposit against an alleged evasion of Rs. 9,39,79,589/- does not convert the offence into a bailable or compoundable one, so the trial court's analogy is incorrect. The respondent offered to deposit 50% of the alleged evasion and has already deposited five crores; minimal risk of witness tampering and absence of prior misuse of bail led the High Court to dismiss the bail cancellation application.
High Court applied section 132 CGST classifications: offences with tax evasion up to five crores are non cognizable and compoundable under section 138, while evasion exceeding five crores is cognizable and non bailable and not compoundable; a five crore deposit against an alleged evasion of Rs. 9,39,79,589/- does not convert the offence into a bailable or compoundable one, so the trial court's analogy is incorrect. The respondent offered to deposit 50% of the alleged evasion and has already deposited five crores; minimal risk of witness tampering and absence of prior misuse of bail led the High Court to dismiss the bail cancellation application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
