https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397081 The court upheld the validity of the arrest procedure under Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., finding that due processes were followed in arresting the petitioner for alleged GST fraud. It determined that State authorities had jurisdiction under the OGST Act, distinct from the CGST Act. The court denied the bail application, citing the seriousness of the GST fraud, its economic impact, and the risk of tampering with evidence. The decision highlighted the need to combat such fraudulent activities to safeguard the country's financial interests, dismissing the bail plea while clarifying that its observations would not prejudge the trial court's decision. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Nov 2020 16:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397081 The court upheld the validity of the arrest procedure under Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., finding that due processes were followed in arresting the petitioner for alleged GST fraud. It determined that State authorities had jurisdiction under the OGST Act, distinct from the CGST Act. The court denied the bail application, citing the seriousness of the GST fraud, its economic impact, and the risk of tampering with evidence. The decision highlighted the need to combat such fraudulent activities to safeguard the country's financial interests, dismissing the bail plea while clarifying that its observations would not prejudge the trial court's decision. Case-Laws GST Mon, 27 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397081