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.
Rajasthan High Court held that discretionary remedy claimed by the petitioner not granted as it is a case which involves fraudulent availment of GST Input Tax Credit exceeding Rs. 100 Crore. Accordingly, writ petition dismissed.
Rajasthan High Court held that criminal prosecution wholly on allegation of concealment is liable to be quashed since the Tribunal has adjudicated that there was neither concealment during penalty proceedings hence there remains no factual or legal basis for the prosecution to survive.
The court held that goods supplied to an intermediary did not qualify for export duty exemption, affirming that factual findings by the Tribunal were correct.
Rajesh Todwal S/o Prem Chand Todwal Vs Dgit (Inv.) Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) Summary: The Rajasthan High Court heard a petition challenging a notice dated 28 March 2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was invalid as it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) […]
