<?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>2025 (4) TMI 1282 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769368</link>
    <description>Bail was granted in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment of input tax credit under the CGST Act, as the Court found no custodial necessity on the record. The complaint relied on toll data and alleged non-movement of goods, but the contemporaneous panchanama showed physical stock verification, batch-wise matching of goods, and CCTV confirmation of vehicle arrival and unloading. The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, the relevant documents were already with the authority, and there was no apparent scope for tampering with evidence. The Court also noted the limited stage of investigation, the maximum punishment prescribed, and the absence of any indicated flight risk.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=816777" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1282 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769368</link>
      <description>Bail was granted in a prosecution alleging fraudulent availment of input tax credit under the CGST Act, as the Court found no custodial necessity on the record. The complaint relied on toll data and alleged non-movement of goods, but the contemporaneous panchanama showed physical stock verification, batch-wise matching of goods, and CCTV confirmation of vehicle arrival and unloading. The petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, the relevant documents were already with the authority, and there was no apparent scope for tampering with evidence. The Court also noted the limited stage of investigation, the maximum punishment prescribed, and the absence of any indicated flight risk.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>