The court refused bail after finding prima facie evidence of large-scale GST evasion through online gaming transactions. The ruling highlights that high-value tax fraud attracts strict non-bailable consequences.
The ruling highlights that immunity under DTDRS is general to penalty proceedings. Consequently, revising penalties merely because a different section might apply is impermissible.
The High Court set aside reassessment proceedings after holding that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer violate the faceless assessment mandate under Section 151A.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a Section 148 notice for AY 2015-16 was valid as it fell within the ten-year limit for escaped income in search cases exceeding Rs.50 lakh.
The Court denied bail citing the serious nature of an organized GST evasion scheme and the ongoing investigation. The ruling highlights concerns over evidence tampering and the need to protect revenue interests.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer was invalid, resulting in the reassessment order being set aside.
The Court granted bail after finding investigation complete, punishment limited to five years, and no risk of tampering in a case based on documentary evidence.
The Court found that reassessment must proceed through the faceless regime and not through a jurisdictional officer. Since the notice was issued in breach of this mandate, both the notice and assessment order were quashed.
The High Court ruled that entry tax applies to goods brought into Rajasthan and transferred out after six months. Rule 12(3) of RET Rules was applied in conjunction with Section 3 of the RET Act.
The Court held that a Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid where the faceless system applies. It quashed the reassessment proceedings and confirmed that such notices must be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer.
