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 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.
The court addressed whether exporters can recover duty paid despite time-barred rebate claims. It held that a fresh application under Section 142(3) can be filed to seek re-credit or refund of excess duty.
The Court dismissed the appeal as the delay was not properly explained. It reaffirmed that strict compliance with limitation rules applies equally to government bodies.
The case clarifies that Section 74 requires clear evidence of fraud or wilful suppression. Mere reliance on third-party alerts without independent inquiry is insufficient. The ruling protects taxpayers from mechanical and assumption-based proceedings.
The Court held that the matter was already settled by an earlier decision on identical facts. It extended the same relief, emphasizing consistency in judicial rulings.
The Court held that electricity duty collected by a licensee is not its own liability but that of consumers. As a result, Section 43B was found inapplicable and the disallowance was rightly deleted.
The Court held that input tax credit cannot be denied solely because the selling dealer failed to deposit tax without examining the genuineness of transactions. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of whether the assessee discharged its burden of proof.
