Allahabad HC Granted Bail to Applicant to Whom No Notice for Recovery of GST Had Been Issued
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 28 August, 2023
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Rajnish Jain v. Directoate General of GST Intelligence - [2023] 153 taxmann.com 560 (Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.
- Pooja Srivastava & Ravi Agrawal for the Applicant.
- Dhananjay Awasthi for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the present case, a bail application was filed by the applicant who was arrested for offence punishable under sections 132(1) (b) & (c) of CGST Act, 2017. It was submitted that the applicant was arrested without assigning any reason to believe nor any satisfaction to justify his arrest.
High Court Held
The Honorable High Court noted that the applicant was without assigning any reason to believe and offences as alleged were punishable up to 5 years imprisonment but no notice for recovery of GST had been issued against applicant. Even, the penalty or taxes had not been ascertained by the department till date.
The Court further noted that alleged offences were compoundable in nature and triable by Magistrate. Therefore, it was held that the bail application was to be allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.
List of Cases Reviewed
-
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay [1977] 4 SCC 308
- Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor AIR 1978 SC 429
- Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [2002] 3 SCC 598
- Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [2010] 14 SCC 496
- Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [2020] 2 SCC 118 (para 10), followed.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2021] 10 SCC 773 (para 5)
- State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay [1977] 4 SCC 308 (para 10)
- Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor AIR 1978 SC 429 (para 10)
- Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [2002] 3 SCC 598 (para 10)
- Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [2010] 14 SCC 496 (para 10)
- Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [2020] 2 SCC 118 (para 10)
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
