<?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>Anticipatory bail denied in GST fake invoice fraud, as prima facie evidence showed organised economic offence and central roles.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99140</link>
    <description>Anticipatory bail was refused in a CGST fake-invoice and fraudulent input tax credit investigation, as the HC found prima facie material showing an organised economic offence and the applicants&#039; central role in it. The Court relied on bank records, GST portal material and electronic communications, not merely witness statements, to conclude that one applicant led GST operations and finances while the other facilitated circulation of invoices. Emphasising that economic offences require stricter scrutiny and that non-compoundable GST offences reflect legislative seriousness, the Court held that ongoing investigation and possible custodial interrogation justified denial of pre-arrest protection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:19:02 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:19:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Anticipatory bail denied in GST fake invoice fraud, as prima facie evidence showed organised economic offence and central roles.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99140</link>
      <description>Anticipatory bail was refused in a CGST fake-invoice and fraudulent input tax credit investigation, as the HC found prima facie material showing an organised economic offence and the applicants&#039; central role in it. The Court relied on bank records, GST portal material and electronic communications, not merely witness statements, to conclude that one applicant led GST operations and finances while the other facilitated circulation of invoices. Emphasising that economic offences require stricter scrutiny and that non-compoundable GST offences reflect legislative seriousness, the Court held that ongoing investigation and possible custodial interrogation justified denial of pre-arrest protection.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 10:19:02 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>