GST Fake ITC: : High Court grants anticipatory bail to petitioner as he cooperated with the police and has handed over his laptop, voice sample and sample of his signatures to the police and is not required by the police for any further investigation.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that as the initial recovery against the co-accused stands acquitted, enhancement of sentence of the petitioner who was nominated on their statements becomes unsustainable in law.
Punjab and Haryana HC rejects interference at early stage in Anshul Jain Vs PCIT case. The court holds that objections can be raised in re-assessment proceedings.
Punjab & Haryana High Court granted bail in fake GST matter as no recovery had been effected from the petitioner during police remand.
Alleged conversion of Rs. 156.22 Cr defrauded amount to Cryptocurrency: P&H HC denies Regular Bail to Accused in Winmoney Scam on Telegram
Varun Gumber Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh (Punjab & Haryana High Court) It has been found that horse racing like foot racing, boat racing, football and baseball is a game of skill and judgment and not a game of chance. The aforementioned finding squarely applies to the present case. Even from the submissions and contentions […]
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in the present GST evasion case the investigation stands concluded and the investigation agency has failed to lead any pre-charge evidence even after passing of almost 6 months. Bail granted.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that if a special provision has been made qua a particular subject (here Value Added Tax), the said subject is excluded from the general provisions (here, Indian Penal Code). Since the provisions of the VAT Act do not provide for the registration of the FIR and the said Act is a Code in itself, the provisions of the IPC also cannot be invoked.
In the present case service tax was not applicable and that no demand of service tax has ever been raised by concerned department. Consequently, retention of aforesaid security money deposited by petitioner is per se not justified.
HC held that there is no change in legal position i.e. scope and ambit of intermediary services under service tax regime vis-a-vis the GST regime hence Master Services Sub-contracting agreement which continues to operate since 2013 cannot be treated differently at different period.
