In Amit Haresh Kumar Mehta v. Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI [Cr. M. A. No. 1486/2021 dated August 11, 2021], Amit Haresh Kumar Mehta (the Applicant) has filed the current application seeking an Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C). The Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI (“the Respondent) has contended […]
The Petitioner counsel contested that the Respondent No. 3, in most arbitrary manner and without application of mind, has passed the impugned order dated March 26, 2021 in complete violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax. In the present case, therefore, we would release the machinery upon the petitioner filing an undertaking before this Court that eventually subject to appeal and further right to challenge the order of assessment, if any tax or penalty liability is crystallized, the petitioner would discharge the same.
The Petitioner was alleged of unjustly availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) on fake invoices and E-way bills alongside Mr. Amit Kumar (Co-accused). While seeking bail, the Petitioner contended that he has been in custody for a month, as on date, with effect from July 19, 2021 and therefore, his further custodial detention is absolutely not necessary in the interest of investigation of the case.
Observed that the term Royalty has always been construed to be a compensation paid for rights and privileges paid to the grantee. In the current case, the charges paid for use of controlled release of water were for the privileges enjoyed by the Appellant and for such a privilege, the charges and royalty are perfectly justified.
Directorate General of GST Intelligence Vs Pankaj Agarwal (Jharkhand High Court) Individual avoiding appearance before competent authority without any just excuse cannot escape coercive action including arrest Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand by an order dated July 09, 2021, observed that section 69 read with section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, […]
The Applicant is accused of procuring bogus bills from companies that did not exist in order to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) and hence was taken into Judicial Custody (JC). The Applicant thereby has contended that the companies in question have ceased to manufacture goods but have not ceased to exist in entirety. Furthermore, the Applicant also contended that he was not provided with any reason or grounds before his arrest and hence, the Applicant is entitled to bail.
OPC Assets Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court) The order passed by the Superintendent and the approach that he has adopted is totally unsatisfactory. To begin with, the order reads more like a thesis in several fields of law in which he has tried to exhibit his half-baked, incomplete and internet […]
The Revenue contended that the Appellant has not proved the genuinity and the credit worthiness of the Mauritius company and therefore, the entire share application money was treated as undisclosed income and added to the returned income by applying Section 68 of the Act.
Petitioner’s imported vessels namely; ‘Jag Arnav’, ‘Jag Ratan’ and ‘Jag Rani’ were exempted from the payment of custom duty when they were first called in Indian Port. The Petitioner’s contention relied on the fact that the Exemption Notification 2012 which levied custom duty on imported vessels was passed after the import of their vessel and cannot have a retrospective application. Hence exempted the Petitioner from the payment of custom duty
