<?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>CGST tax evasion classification and bail: deposit and undertaking not enough to alter cognizability or compoundability, bail cancellation dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96834</link>
    <description>High Court applied section 132 CGST classifications: offences with tax evasion up to five crores are non cognizable and compoundable under section 138, while evasion exceeding five crores is cognizable and non bailable and not compoundable; a five crore deposit against an alleged evasion of Rs. 9,39,79,589/- does not convert the offence into a bailable or compoundable one, so the trial court&#039;s analogy is incorrect. The respondent offered to deposit 50% of the alleged evasion and has already deposited five crores; minimal risk of witness tampering and absence of prior misuse of bail led the High Court to dismiss the bail cancellation application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:53:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:53:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886049" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>CGST tax evasion classification and bail: deposit and undertaking not enough to alter cognizability or compoundability, bail cancellation dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96834</link>
      <description>High Court applied section 132 CGST classifications: offences with tax evasion up to five crores are non cognizable and compoundable under section 138, while evasion exceeding five crores is cognizable and non bailable and not compoundable; a five crore deposit against an alleged evasion of Rs. 9,39,79,589/- does not convert the offence into a bailable or compoundable one, so the trial court&#039;s analogy is incorrect. The respondent offered to deposit 50% of the alleged evasion and has already deposited five crores; minimal risk of witness tampering and absence of prior misuse of bail led the High Court to dismiss the bail cancellation application.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:53:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=96834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>