<?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>Pre-arrest bail denied under Section 70 CGST for alleged fictitious firm, Rs 29.4 crore fraudulent ITC, risk of evidence tampering</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93002</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:53 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Pre-arrest bail denied under Section 70 CGST for alleged fictitious firm, Rs 29.4 crore fraudulent ITC, risk of evidence tampering</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93002</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the petition and refused grant of pre-arrest bail in respect of summons issued by respondent No.3 under section 70 of the CGST Act, concluding that the petitioner faces specific and serious allegations of operating a fictitious firm, facilitating fraudulent input tax credit of approximately Rs. 29.4 crore, preparing false e-way bills, providing incorrect bank details and orchestrating inter-account fund rotation to evade revenue, and furnishing fictitious supplier details. The Court found the inquiry to be at a nascent stage, the petitioner non-cooperative, and a substantial revenue loss alleged; it held there is a real risk of misuse of pre-arrest bail enabling evasion of custodial interrogation, tampering with evidence or manipulation of records, warranting dismissal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:07:53 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>