<?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>Accused Granted Bail in GST Fraud Case Involving Fake ITC Claims and Rs. 196 Crore Transactions; Lacks Sufficient Evidence.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80510</link>
    <description>The court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and furnishing fake GST certificate for opening a bank account. The first allegation pertained to claiming ITC of Rs. 3,65,23,076/- without the corresponding tax being deposited by the supplying firms. The court held that prosecution u/s 132 of the CGST Act for fraudulently obtaining refund requires prior sanction from the Commissioner. Regarding the second allegation of using a fake GST certificate to open a bank account with transactions of Rs. 196 crores, the court observed a lack of evidence on whether the petitioner cheated anyone. As the case is triable by a Magistrate and based on documentary evidence, keepin.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:05:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:05:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=764426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Accused Granted Bail in GST Fraud Case Involving Fake ITC Claims and Rs. 196 Crore Transactions; Lacks Sufficient Evidence.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80510</link>
      <description>The court granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and furnishing fake GST certificate for opening a bank account. The first allegation pertained to claiming ITC of Rs. 3,65,23,076/- without the corresponding tax being deposited by the supplying firms. The court held that prosecution u/s 132 of the CGST Act for fraudulently obtaining refund requires prior sanction from the Commissioner. Regarding the second allegation of using a fake GST certificate to open a bank account with transactions of Rs. 196 crores, the court observed a lack of evidence on whether the petitioner cheated anyone. As the case is triable by a Magistrate and based on documentary evidence, keepin.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Aug 2024 08:05:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80510</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>