<?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>2024 (12) TMI 1001 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763421</link>
    <description>Delhi HC held the petitioner&#039;s arrest under CGST Act Section 132 illegal and set aside the remand order. The court found multiple procedural violations including non-supply of written grounds of arrest, illegal detention beyond 24 hours, and fraudulent summons issuance. The summons dated 27th November 2024 requiring appearance on 28th October 2024 showed DIN generation time of 21:55:20 hours on 28th November 2024, approximately 5 hours after the scheduled appearance, indicating the summons never existed when served. The Magistrate&#039;s remand order was mechanical without proper consideration of constitutional safeguards under Article 22. The petitioner was ordered released from judicial custody forthwith.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2025 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 1001 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763421</link>
      <description>Delhi HC held the petitioner&#039;s arrest under CGST Act Section 132 illegal and set aside the remand order. The court found multiple procedural violations including non-supply of written grounds of arrest, illegal detention beyond 24 hours, and fraudulent summons issuance. The summons dated 27th November 2024 requiring appearance on 28th October 2024 showed DIN generation time of 21:55:20 hours on 28th November 2024, approximately 5 hours after the scheduled appearance, indicating the summons never existed when served. The Magistrate&#039;s remand order was mechanical without proper consideration of constitutional safeguards under Article 22. The petitioner was ordered released from judicial custody forthwith.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763421</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>