<?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 (6) TMI 114 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772001</link>
    <description>Punjab and Haryana HC granted regular bail to petitioners accused of running fake GST invoice racket under sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017. Court noted that while allegations involve fraudulent input tax credit claims causing government revenue loss, exact liability remains undetermined pending assessment by competent authority. Petitioners were in custody since December 13, 2024. HC observed that offences carry maximum five-year punishment, evidence is primarily documentary/electronic through official witnesses with no tampering risk, and department sought no custodial interrogation. Court balanced detention necessity against circumstances, ordering release on personal bonds with two sureties subject to conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 08:35:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=826139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 114 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772001</link>
      <description>Punjab and Haryana HC granted regular bail to petitioners accused of running fake GST invoice racket under sections 132(1)(b) and 132(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017. Court noted that while allegations involve fraudulent input tax credit claims causing government revenue loss, exact liability remains undetermined pending assessment by competent authority. Petitioners were in custody since December 13, 2024. HC observed that offences carry maximum five-year punishment, evidence is primarily documentary/electronic through official witnesses with no tampering risk, and department sought no custodial interrogation. Court balanced detention necessity against circumstances, ordering release on personal bonds with two sureties subject to conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>