Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail in an alleged fake ITC case after noting that investigation was complete and evidence was mainly documentary and electronic. The Court held that continued custody was not justified when no further interrogation was required.
Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to an accused linked to alleged fake GST billing and forged documents. The Court noted that the offence was triable by a Magistrate and the petitioner had already spent about six months in custody.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Section 73 GST notice lacking specific details, computations, and supporting material is legally unsustainable. The ruling emphasizes that vague allegations violate principles of natural justice and deprive taxpayers of an effective opportunity to respond.
The High Court held that classification of grant-in-aid as capital or revenue is a debatable issue. It ruled that such classification disputes do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The court held that a show cause notice lacking clear reasons and supporting documents violates natural justice. It quashed the retrospective cancellation, allowing fresh proceedings as per law.
The Court set aside a GST demand order after finding that authorities failed to consider the taxpayer’s replies and supporting documents. It held that lack of reasoning and mechanical conclusions rendered the order invalid.
The Court dismissed the petition as the same bail condition had been previously upheld. The key takeaway is that issues already adjudicated cannot be reopened.
The Court held that electricity duty collected by a licensee is not its own liability but that of consumers. As a result, Section 43B was found inapplicable and the disallowance was rightly deleted.
The court examined whether road tax and penalties could be demanded for issuing an NOC. It held that such charges are not applicable when only an NOC is sought. The key takeaway is that NOC issuance cannot be linked to tax liabilities meant for registration.
The Court held that ignoring the taxpayer’s reply renders the order invalid. It emphasised that adjudication must consider submissions before passing orders.
