<?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 (8) TMI 1580 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462534</link>
    <description>In bail proceedings arising from allegations of fake firms, fake invoices and fraudulent input tax credit under the CGST Act, the HC treated the investigation material, including electronic data, credentials, seals and return data, as sufficient to show a prima facie scheme of circulating ineligible credit without actual supply of goods. Applying the settled approach that economic offences stand on a different footing, the Court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the supporting material, and the risks of absconding or tampering with evidence, and declined to undertake a trial-like appraisal. The absence of a demand under Sections 73 and 74 did not justify release on bail, and bail was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:55:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1580 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462534</link>
      <description>In bail proceedings arising from allegations of fake firms, fake invoices and fraudulent input tax credit under the CGST Act, the HC treated the investigation material, including electronic data, credentials, seals and return data, as sufficient to show a prima facie scheme of circulating ineligible credit without actual supply of goods. Applying the settled approach that economic offences stand on a different footing, the Court considered the seriousness of the allegations, the supporting material, and the risks of absconding or tampering with evidence, and declined to undertake a trial-like appraisal. The absence of a demand under Sections 73 and 74 did not justify release on bail, and bail was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>