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.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the faceless assessment scheme is invalid. The notice contravened Section 151A and the 2022 e-Assessment scheme. The court quashed the notice with directions to follow statutory faceless procedure.
Court held that a legal representative’s liability is limited to inherited assets and set aside attachment because no evidence showed petitioner inherited property from firm’s partners.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held that interest on income tax demand arises only after expiry of 30 days from a valid notice under Section 156, not from an earlier notice that ceased to exist.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that tax officers cannot block a taxpayer’s electronic credit ledger under Rule 86-A beyond the ITC actually available.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted bail to an accused in a ₹19 crore fake ITC case after six months of custody, holding further detention unwarranted.
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeals challenging the allowance of investment deduction under Section 32A for AY 1984-85 and 1985-86. The court noted the tax effect was below the CBDT’s monetary limit and the appellant failed to serve the respondents for years.
