Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, the requirement of further probe into digital and financial evidence, and the possibility of influencing witnesses or obstructing the investigation, the applicant had failed to make out a case for the exercise of the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Chhattisgarh HC granted bail after finding no unimpeachable document proving the applicant owned the firm. Issues of involvement were left for trial.
The Chhattisgarh High Court declined to direct the Income Tax Department to investigate alleged tax evasion after noting that the Tax Evasion Petition had already been rejected as barred by limitation. It held that no writ of mandamus could be issued on the facts of the case.
Chhattisgarh High Court upheld ITAT’s finding that the reassessment order exceeded the limitation under Section 153 and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
The High Court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition seeking action on an alleged tax evasion complaint, holding that no case for issuing a writ of mandamus was made out at that stage. It found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order.
The High Court held that the applicant’s continued custody after detention without production before the competent court within 24 hours violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution. It granted bail while leaving the legality of the Look Out Circular open for consideration at the appropriate stage.
The Chhattisgarh High Court held that the alleged GST offence, involving liability below Rs. 5 crore, was non-cognizable under the GST framework. The applicant’s request for pre-arrest protection was accordingly dismissed.
The Chhattisgarh High Court denied anticipatory bail after finding prima facie material indicating involvement in the alleged coal levy scam. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to statements, electronic evidence, and the seriousness of the economic offence.
The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld deletion of ₹15.94 crore addition after finding no adverse material supporting allegations of suppressed production and unaccounted sales. The Court reaffirmed that assessments cannot be based on mere assumptions or estimated yield comparisons.
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that TCS under Section 206C(1C) applies only to lease holders, licence holders, or persons granted mining rights. Compounding fees collected from illegal miners were held outside its scope.
