<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (11) TMI 942 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388693</link>
    <description>Under the CGST regime, arrest during investigation is an exceptional coercive measure and must rest on credible material, not merely on summons or the fact of ongoing inquiry. The analysis emphasises that such power should be used with circumspection, consistently with constitutional liberty and criminal-procedure safeguards, and only where there is material showing active involvement in serious tax evasion, risk of absconding, habitual conduct, or other immediate necessity. On the facts discussed, no direct material linked Petitioner No. 1 to the alleged refund irregularity, and repeated appearance to summons weighed against custody. Protection against custodial arrest was therefore granted to Petitioner No. 1 while investigation could continue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2026 11:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=594790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 942 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388693</link>
      <description>Under the CGST regime, arrest during investigation is an exceptional coercive measure and must rest on credible material, not merely on summons or the fact of ongoing inquiry. The analysis emphasises that such power should be used with circumspection, consistently with constitutional liberty and criminal-procedure safeguards, and only where there is material showing active involvement in serious tax evasion, risk of absconding, habitual conduct, or other immediate necessity. On the facts discussed, no direct material linked Petitioner No. 1 to the alleged refund irregularity, and repeated appearance to summons weighed against custody. Protection against custodial arrest was therefore granted to Petitioner No. 1 while investigation could continue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>