<?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 1842 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773729</link>
    <description>Proceedings under GST enactments remain subject to the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the special law expressly or impliedly excludes it, because the GST framework was not treated as a complete code for search, seizure, arrest, inquiry and trial. Quashing was refused since the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of fake invoices, non-existent suppliers and wrongful input tax credit, and alleged defects in departmental investigation did not by themselves establish prejudice or abuse of process. The Court also upheld warrant-case procedure with pre-charge evidence, as the offence alleged attracted punishment up to five years and therefore fell within the criminal procedure framework for cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:36:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=831925" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1842 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773729</link>
      <description>Proceedings under GST enactments remain subject to the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the special law expressly or impliedly excludes it, because the GST framework was not treated as a complete code for search, seizure, arrest, inquiry and trial. Quashing was refused since the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of fake invoices, non-existent suppliers and wrongful input tax credit, and alleged defects in departmental investigation did not by themselves establish prejudice or abuse of process. The Court also upheld warrant-case procedure with pre-charge evidence, as the offence alleged attracted punishment up to five years and therefore fell within the criminal procedure framework for cases instituted otherwise than on a police report.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>