Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Article 22(2) was not violated because the court found that arrest took place after completion of the search and statement recording, and production before the magistrate at 8.30 pm the same day remained within the 24-hour constitutional limit, even after accounting for medical examination time. The challenge to the arrest also failed because the grounds disclosed material from investigation showing involvement in an organised online gaming and shell-entity network alleged to have caused GST evasion under the CGST Act. The court accepted that the record showed prior summons, search action and non-cooperation, and held that the arrest was backed by sufficient material. Relief in writ jurisdiction was therefore declined.
Article 22(2) was not violated because the court found that arrest took place after completion of the search and statement recording, and production before the magistrate at 8.30 pm the same day remained within the 24-hour constitutional limit, even after accounting for medical examination time. The challenge to the arrest also failed because the grounds disclosed material from investigation showing involvement in an organised online gaming and shell-entity network alleged to have caused GST evasion under the CGST Act. The court accepted that the record showed prior summons, search action and non-cooperation, and held that the arrest was backed by sufficient material. Relief in writ jurisdiction was therefore declined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.