<?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>2022 (2) TMI 135 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417884</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail was declined in a serious economic offence involving allegations of bogus firms, forged documents and misuse of input tax credit. The Court treated the material as indicating a planned fraud affecting public revenue, and noted that the petitioner appeared to have played a deeper role in arranging registration documents, identities and related records rather than acting only as a legal adviser. Custodial interrogation was considered necessary to uncover the wider network and modus operandi, and the fact that ad interim protection had been granted in another FIR did not assist because the present allegations were materially different and more serious.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2022 06:59:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=669277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 135 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417884</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail was declined in a serious economic offence involving allegations of bogus firms, forged documents and misuse of input tax credit. The Court treated the material as indicating a planned fraud affecting public revenue, and noted that the petitioner appeared to have played a deeper role in arranging registration documents, identities and related records rather than acting only as a legal adviser. Custodial interrogation was considered necessary to uncover the wider network and modus operandi, and the fact that ad interim protection had been granted in another FIR did not assist because the present allegations were materially different and more serious.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>