https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764959 HC found the Commissioner had authorized proceedings under s.132(1)(c) CGST based on reasons to believe, but no prima facie determination of tax liability was shown and there was no material suggesting the petitioner would tamper with evidence or abscond. The court noted compliance issues under Arnesh Kumar required further scrutiny and that mere availability of arrest power does not mandate detention. Because the petitioner cooperated and his statement was recorded, continued detention was unnecessary. Bail application allowed; petitioner released on interim bail subject to conditions imposed by the court. en-us Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 May 2026 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764959 HC found the Commissioner had authorized proceedings under s.132(1)(c) CGST based on reasons to believe, but no prima facie determination of tax liability was shown and there was no material suggesting the petitioner would tamper with evidence or abscond. The court noted compliance issues under Arnesh Kumar required further scrutiny and that mere availability of arrest power does not mandate detention. Because the petitioner cooperated and his statement was recorded, continued detention was unnecessary. Bail application allowed; petitioner released on interim bail subject to conditions imposed by the court. Case-Laws GST Thu, 09 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764959