MP HC grants Bail against GST offence u/s 132(1) of CGST Act
MP HC Grant Bail to Pakistani National accused of GST evasion
Nitesh Wadhwani Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner began with the arguments that the only fault of the petitioner is that he is the landlord of the premises where his tenant, who runs a factory, allegedly evaded the tax by clandestine sale of Pan Masala. The […]
Kishore Wadhwani Vs. State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The petitioner filed the petition seeking released from the court against the allegations under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in crime no.23/2020 registered under section 132(1)(a) (i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner, is Director of a Media Company, which publishes a […]
MP High Court Grant Bail to Pakistani National who accused of GST evasion of Rs. 225 Crores alongwith furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-
Explore Ankit Babeley vs. State of M.P. & Ors. case. Petitioner seeks permission to file Trans-1 for claiming transitional credit. High Court’s directive to respondents regarding pending representation.
Subhash Joshi & another Vs Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) Submission of counsel for petitioner is that the search should be carried out in the presence of the Advocate, but counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any statutory provision or any such legal right in favour […]
The issue under consideration is whether person is entitled to continue at the same place where he was posted at the time of passing the suspension order and committing the alleged misconduct?
Bhupendra Suryawanshi Vs Sai Traders (Madhya Pradesh) The proviso to Section 138, however, is all important and stipulates three distinct conditions precedent, which must be satisfied before the dishonour of a cheque can constitute an offence and become punishable. The first condition is that the cheque ought to have been presented to the bank within […]
In the present case, respondent rejected the refund of excess amount of stamp duty paid on the ground that the said provision does not apply to the case of the petitioner/company as ad-valorem duty was paid at 1% and not at 5% of the market value.
