https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372581 Alleged floating of bogus firms and issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods was treated as conduct falling within Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act and, on the material considered, as attracting the cognizable and non-bailable regime under Section 132(5). Bail was also held liable to cancellation because cancellation requires cogent circumstances such as interference with justice, abuse of liberty, or tampering with evidence, and the record indicated both serious alleged GST fraud and witness intimidation. The earlier bail order was set aside and the respondent was taken into custody. en-us Sat, 22 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Feb 2025 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372581 Alleged floating of bogus firms and issuance of invoices without actual supply of goods was treated as conduct falling within Section 132(1)(b) of the CGST Act and, on the material considered, as attracting the cognizable and non-bailable regime under Section 132(5). Bail was also held liable to cancellation because cancellation requires cogent circumstances such as interference with justice, abuse of liberty, or tampering with evidence, and the record indicated both serious alleged GST fraud and witness intimidation. The earlier bail order was set aside and the respondent was taken into custody. Case-Laws GST Sat, 22 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372581