The High Court refused regular bail citing serious allegations of breach of trust and forgery involving substantial GST refund transactions. The petitioner’s prior absconding and risk of re-absconding were key reasons for denial.
The High Court granted regular bail in a ₹26.19 crore fake ITC case, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, and that the offence is triable by a Magistrate with a maximum five-year sentence.
The High Court held that registration under Section 12A cannot be granted based solely on oral submissions without documentary proof. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with liberty to produce additional evidence.
The High Court set aside a Section 148 notice issued without following the mandatory faceless assessment procedure under Section 144B. It held that such action was without jurisdiction.
The Court held that Rule 86A does not permit blocking ITC beyond the credit available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Creation of a negative balance was declared unsustainable.
The High Court dismissed the appeal holding that stock statements forming the basis of overdraft drawing power could not be disowned without contrary evidence. Addition was sustained after opportunities were granted to disprove the statements.
High Court held that compensation received for termination of trademark rights in AY 1997-98 was a capital receipt. Since Section 28(va) was inserted prospectively from 01.04.2003, it could not apply to relevant year.
The High Court ruled that Rule 86A allows restriction only of existing ITC in the electronic credit ledger. Creating a negative balance was held to be without jurisdiction.
The High Court declined to interfere with a GST show cause notice and order, holding that effective statutory appellate remedies were available and should be pursued.
The High Court refused bail, holding that prima facie material showed demand and partial acceptance of illegal gratification. Such allegations were found to seriously undermine public confidence in the justice system.
