Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.