Topic
Prosecution, compounding and liability of company officers.
11 rulings found
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
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
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
Allahabad High Court
Where applicant was accused of operating multiple shell firms to pass fraudulent ITC with large financial magnitude and was in custody with no prior criminal antecedents, with no assessment proceedings pending and maximum sentence of five years, bail was granted citing fair procedure, presumption of innocence, and protracted trial likelihood
Punjab & Haryana High Court
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
Allahabad High Court
Where applicant, proprietor of areca nut trading firm, was prosecuted for alleged issuance of bogus retail invoices for B2B supplies and routing of cash via brokers, with no prior criminal history, undisclosed evasion amount, assessment pending, completed investigation, and no evidence of risk to justice, bail was justified as pre-conviction detention was not punitive and bail was rule
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner arrested for running fake firms and facilitating GST evasion applied for successive bail on parity with co-accused who was granted bail, absence of substantial change in circumstances and distinct, graver role of petitioner compared to co-accused meant parity plea was insufficient, and second bail application was to be dismissed due to strict approach for economic offences
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner, a partner in firm alleged to have evaded GST by supplying goods without invoices worth Rs 53.16 crores, faced offences triable by Magistrate with maximum five-year punishment since investigation stood completed and custodial interrogation or recovery was no longer needed, bail was granted as trial would take time
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioners involved in alleged large-scale GST evasion sought anticipatory bail to approach judicial forum in another state, limited interim protection was to be granted for ten days subject to personal bond and sureties, passport surrender, and cooperation with investigation as there was no flight risk
Gauhati High Court
Where director of civil construction company was arrested for alleged wrongful ITC based on fabricated invoices for NHIDCL project, all incriminating documents were already seized and petitioner remained over 15 days in custody for an offence punishable up to five years, further detention would not serve purpose and bail was granted considering adverse business impact
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where proprietor of GST-registered iron and steel trading concern was arrested for wrongful ITC claims relying on documentary evidence, with judicial custody exceeding three-and-a-half months, further detention was unwarranted as investigation was based on documents, no flight risk or potential for evidence tampering existed and speedy trial rights demanded grant of bail subject to conditions