<?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>2026 (6) TMI 943 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793562</link>
    <description>Regular bail was granted in a CGST prosecution for alleged fraudulent input tax credit because the material at the bail stage did not conclusively establish the applicant&#039;s proprietorship, beneficial ownership, or conscious participation. The prosecution relied mainly on investigative statements, financial dealings between related entities, and circumstances said to indicate operational control, but the Court held these issues required detailed trial examination. It also noted that the investigation had substantially progressed, relevant documents and electronic evidence had been seized, and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. On that basis, continued custody was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 08:45:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 943 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793562</link>
      <description>Regular bail was granted in a CGST prosecution for alleged fraudulent input tax credit because the material at the bail stage did not conclusively establish the applicant&#039;s proprietorship, beneficial ownership, or conscious participation. The prosecution relied mainly on investigative statements, financial dealings between related entities, and circumstances said to indicate operational control, but the Court held these issues required detailed trial examination. It also noted that the investigation had substantially progressed, relevant documents and electronic evidence had been seized, and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary. On that basis, continued custody was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>