The Court granted bail after noting that the alleged GST offences carry a maximum sentence of five years and the charge-sheet had already been filed. The ruling relied on Supreme Court observations favoring bail in similar circumstances.
The Court held that the petitioner ought to have participated in the assessment proceedings after the notice was uploaded on the GST portal. Since the taxpayer bypassed the statutory process, the writ petition was dismissed.
The Court held that penalty under Section 129 cannot be sustained without evidence of intent to evade tax. Since the goods were unloaded at the assessees own godown and no discrepancies existed in the documents, the penalty was set aside.
The Court held that the period during which the review petition remained pending should be excluded while computing limitation for issuance of a show cause notice. It also directed the petitioner to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.
The Court refused bail in a disproportionate assets case after noting allegations that assets worth ₹82.38 crore exceeded known sources of income by about 1152%. Issues relating to valuation and income justification were left for trial.
The Court held that a rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act cannot be rejected without following principles of natural justice. The rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after a hearing.
The Bombay High Court held that detention beyond the statutory period before production before a Magistrate violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution and Section 57 Cr.P.C. The arrest and remand orders were declared illegal.
The Bombay High Court held that the arrest memos did not satisfy the statutory requirements for arrest under the CrPC. The Court granted interim bail after finding non-compliance with mandatory legal safeguards.
The Bombay High Court upheld the Tribunal’s view that a reference under Section 55A was invalid where the assessee’s valuation was higher than the fair market value. The appeal was dismissed as no question of law arose.
The Bombay High Court held that a DVO reference under Section 55A was invalid because the assessee’s declared value was higher than the fair market value. The ruling reiterates the scope of Section 55A as it existed before the 2012 amendment.
