The Court held that extended pre-trial detention would infringe the petitioner’s constitutional right to speedy trial. It relied on Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the need to avoid prolonged incarceration in documentary-based cases. Bail was therefore granted on strict terms.
The Court held that the taxpayer approached without replying to the GST show cause notice. It directed submission of a reply within one week, which the authorities must consider.
The High Court declined anticipatory bail, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace siphoned funds in a large-scale cyber fraud. The decision underscores that anticipatory bail cannot be granted when it may hinder investigation.
The High Court ruled that undisclosed income can be assessed using both search material and other information relatable to it, confirming the ITAT’s interpretation of Section 158-BB.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to a petitioner accused of availing ineligible GST Input Tax Credit worth Rs. 6.09 crore. The court cited completed investigation, documentary evidence, and absence of custodial interrogation as grounds for bail.
The High Court granted regular bail after finding no misuse of interim bail and noting that all witnesses were officials, reducing risks of interference.
The High Court granted bail after noting that investigation was complete, the petitioner had been in custody since May 2022, and no further recovery was pending. The ruling emphasizes that continued detention was unnecessary for a magisterial trial yet to begin.
The Court allowed bail after noting six months of custody, holding that continued detention was unnecessary. Allegations of fake firms and large ITC misuse were left for trial.
The Court rejected anticipatory bail after noting allegations involving forged air tickets and financial misappropriation. It held that the seriousness of accusations required further investigation.
Court granted bail noting that case was still at pre-charge stage and carried a maximum sentence of five years. The ruling underscores that extended custody was unnecessary for a Magistrate-triable offence.
