https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761387 A second FIR was not barred where it rested on a materially distinct factual foundation, even though some background facts overlapped with an earlier FIR and GST proceedings. The Court treated the earlier FIR as concerning alleged document fabrication and efforts to displace control of the company, while the later FIR alleged clandestine manufacture and sale of goods, misappropriation of company funds, diversion of sale proceeds, falsification of records, and personal use of cash. It also held that the GST notice did not cover the alleged misappropriation and diversion, so the criminal allegations were not confined to the GST domain. A person with an interest in the company could inform police of cognizable offences, and the FIR was allowed to stand. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 01 Jun 2025 21:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761387 A second FIR was not barred where it rested on a materially distinct factual foundation, even though some background facts overlapped with an earlier FIR and GST proceedings. The Court treated the earlier FIR as concerning alleged document fabrication and efforts to displace control of the company, while the later FIR alleged clandestine manufacture and sale of goods, misappropriation of company funds, diversion of sale proceeds, falsification of records, and personal use of cash. It also held that the GST notice did not cover the alleged misappropriation and diversion, so the criminal allegations were not confined to the GST domain. A person with an interest in the company could inform police of cognizable offences, and the FIR was allowed to stand. Case-Laws GST Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761387