It is further contended that petitioner is involved in using data of individuals for creating fake firms to claim Input Tax Credit. It is contended that statement of accountant and brother of petitioner has been recorded, they have also stated that present petitioner was involved in creating fake firm under GST. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the Union of India, I am not inclined to allow the bail application.
Obelisk Composite Technology LLP Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) After considering the fact that the Union of India and the Finance Department have extended the period contemplated under Rule 1A of Rule 117 till 31st December, 2019, Hon’ble High Court grants liberty to the petitioner to make an application before GST Council (through […]
Pr. CIT Vs M/s Secure Meters Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) As far as the question relating to trading profit is concerned, the record shows that the assessee derived this income from the sale of boxes manufactured by it to house electric meters. It is not disputed that the deduction under section 80 IB/IC was for […]
Bharat Raj Punj Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate (Rajasthan High Court) HC held that Looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence specially the fact that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of wrong availment of input tax credit of more than Rs. 40.53 Crores […]
Atul Chopra Vs. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) The issue under consideration is whether the bail will be granted to the assessee who was arrested for offence committed under GST? The offence as alleged in the FIR is under section 132(1)(a) read with section 132(1)(h), (j) and (k) of the Rajasthan Goods and Services […]
Goods & Services Tax (GST) introduced in India on 1st July, 2017, subsumes seventeen tax legislations including various central legislations. The Hon’ble Union Finance Minister announced a dispute resolution cum amnesty scheme called “the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019” in the Union Budget 2019-20 for resolution and settlement of legacy cases of Central […]
We are inclined to follow the view taken by the Bombay High Court, which in any case, was also the view taken by this Court in Smt. Anita Chaudhary (supra). Since this appeal has been filed within 90 days which is prescribed period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Act of 1955, the same is held to be within limitation.
No doubt, the appeal filed by the petitioner was time barred but in the facts of the case, in our considered view, the appeal of the petitioner ought to be decided on merits rather dismissing the same on the ground of delay.
Rakesh Kumar Khandelwal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioner has placed before the Court various Tax Invoices and e-Way Bills through which purchases have been made by the firm and the record of the Department from which it is revealed that Firms were in existence. As per Rules 25 of the GST Rules, […]
Himani Munjal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in Criminal Complaint No. 35/2018 pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Jaipur Mahanagar, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c)(d),(f),(i) and (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax […]
