The Court granted bail noting absence of direct evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged fraudulent firm. The decision highlights that mere allegations without supporting material are insufficient to deny bail.
The Tribunal held that goods falling under the excluded category of the notification are not eligible for exemption. The appeal was dismissed as the claim was contrary to the express exclusion provision.
The Court noted that a system exists to provide temporary GST IDs for aggrieved persons. No further directions were issued as the grievance had been resolved.
The Court directed authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application under the scheme. It noted that a co-noticee had already received relief under the same proceedings.
The issue was whether incorrect tax treatment amounts to concealment. The Tribunal held that mere wrong classification in books does not attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The case examined whether bail could be granted when the accused was not named in the FIR and lacked direct linkage to the alleged offence. The Court granted bail, noting absence of evidence connecting the applicant to the alleged GST fraud.
The Court granted bail noting that the case was based on documentary evidence and no custodial remand was sought. It held that continued detention was not necessary where the accused could cooperate during trial.
The court set aside an ex-parte adjudication order where no reply was filed to the show-cause notice due to a bona fide lapse. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity to respond.
The issue was whether addition can be made based on third-party investigation findings. The Tribunal held that without direct incriminating evidence, such addition is unsustainable, emphasizing the need for nexus.
The Court held that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act. It granted liberty to approach the Tribunal and disposed of the writ petition.
