High Court of Punjab & Haryana
Manoj Bansal v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence
For assessee
CRM-M- NO. 45265 OF 2025 (O & M)
High Court of Punjab & Haryana
CRM-M- NO. 45265 OF 2025 (O & M)
Where complaint alleged wrongful availment of ITC M/s NIPL but did not arraign company as accused despite offences being attributed to company as registered person, prosecution of Director alone was not maintainable as company must first be arraigned for vicarious liability to arise, leading to quashing of complaint and all consequential proceedings
Section 137, read with Section 132, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Allahabad High Court
Where applicant accused of availing fraudulent input tax credit on invoices of non-existent firms was in custody after investigation completion, no evidence showed likelihood of tampering, intimidation or evasion, assessment was not initiated, maximum punishment was five years, and trial was unlikely soon, bail was justified considering presumption of innocence, speedy trial, and bail as rule
Allahabad High Court
Where authorities alleged firm availed and passed on fake ITC through bogus invoices and initiated simultaneous GST demand and BNS prosecution based on same facts, since genesis was GST non-payment and BNSS mandates such offences be investigated under special enactments, prosecution under BNS for same conduct was barred and all parallel criminal proceedings under general law were quashed against applicant
Chhattisgarh High Court
Where petitioner, a private businessman, filed PIL seeking directions for investigation and recovery in alleged tax evasion by specific parties based on supplied documents and previous dismissal for want of locus and same was to be dismissed as petitioner failed to disclose any element of genuine public interest; Security amount deposited by petitioner was to be forfeited