<?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 (7) TMI 226 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794340</link>
    <description>The Calcutta HC analysis notes that criminal proceedings for cheating, forgery, cheating by personation and criminal conspiracy may be quashed where the record does not disclose the essential ingredients of those offences. It found no recovery of the original transit declarations, no forensic comparison, no handwriting expert opinion, and no material showing either accused as the maker of the alleged forged document or showing deception, dishonest inducement, personation, or conspiracy. It further treated the prosecution as collateral to an antecedent VAT dispute and therefore an abuse of process, concluding that inherent jurisdiction could be used to terminate the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 226 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794340</link>
      <description>The Calcutta HC analysis notes that criminal proceedings for cheating, forgery, cheating by personation and criminal conspiracy may be quashed where the record does not disclose the essential ingredients of those offences. It found no recovery of the original transit declarations, no forensic comparison, no handwriting expert opinion, and no material showing either accused as the maker of the alleged forged document or showing deception, dishonest inducement, personation, or conspiracy. It further treated the prosecution as collateral to an antecedent VAT dispute and therefore an abuse of process, concluding that inherent jurisdiction could be used to terminate the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794340</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>