A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

Kerala High Court Rejects Bail in ₹6.14 Crore Tax Evasion Case, Citing Seriousness of Allegations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Kerala High Court has denied bail to a petitioner accused of tax evasion amounting to ₹6.14 crores under the Kerala State Goods and Service Act, 2017. The judgment, delivered by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., has underscored the gravity of the allegations and the importance of continuing the investigation without interference.

The court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the case. The petitioner, a wholesale distributor of mobile accessories and electronic items, was alleged to have supplied goods without issuing invoices, thereby evading tax payments dating back to 2018. The arrest followed a raid on the petitioner’s office on November 9, 2023.

One of the key legal points addressed by the court was the timing of the arrest in relation to the assessment proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the arrest could only occur after the completion of the assessment. However, the court rejected this argument, stating, “The power to arrest under Section 69 can be invoked if the Commissioner has a reason to believe that the person has committed offences that are prescribed and which are punishable under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017.”

The court further emphasized the need to prevent potential tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, stating, “If it is to ensure a proper investigation and prevent the possibility of tampering with evidence or intimidating or influencing the witnesses, the power can certainly be exercised.”

Ultimately, the court found that the allegations of tax evasion, amounting to more than ₹6.5 crores, were serious and warranted a thorough investigation. Therefore, it denied bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Date of Decision: 12th December 2023

BADHA RAM VS INTELLIGENCE OFFICER 

 

Latest Legal News