Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

This court does not have jurisdiction over the prima facie case, because the three firms with which the alleged crime is alleged to have been committed by the accused are all firms located and registered in Delhi.

Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017— Remand -- The appellant department’s counsel submitted that the DGGI registered cases against three non-existent firms of Delhi, which were engaged in fake invoicing by three persons, who were arrested and produced before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The case is under investigation and Charge Sheet has not been filed by the department. Many buyers and suppliers were involved, which were spread across many states of the country. In one such case, the respondent was arrested by DGGI Ghaziabad on 18.11.2020. The respondent accused submitted an application to the court so that the department can be prevented from presenting the accused before the Court Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The respondent submitted that all firms/companies which are said to be of accused are registered and located in Delhi. Thus the alleged crime was committed in Delhi and not in Uttar Pradesh. The appropriate jurisdiction of the alleged offence u/s 179 Cr.P.C. is the court where the alleged offence is committed. Held that:-The Hon’ble Court concluded that this court is not found to have jurisdiction in the present case. Remand and other records of accused should be submitted before the competent jurisdiction court of Ld. C.M.M. Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
Join Whats App Group
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Product Demo
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
whatsapp with taxlok SUBSCRIBE OUR MAGAZINE

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE