GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other DGAP, DG Anti Profiteering, Director General of Anti-Profiteering v Savaliya Procon 2026-juristway.com-3112-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 22 October 2026 In DGAP v. Savaliya Procon, 2026-juristway.com-3112-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where the proceedings arose from a complaint under Rule 128 alleging profiteering in the 'Krish Elite' project (401 units), the DGAP after re-investigation (following the CCI remand in light of Reckitt Benckiser (Delhi HC)) found that out of 401 units, 175 units booked before BU Permission were relevant for investigation, that the ITC-to-purchase ratio decreased from 6.55% (pre-GST) to 5.77% (post-GST), and both parties accepted the DGAP findings, the Tribunal accepted the DGAP report and closed the proceedings. GSTAT · Thane ● Remanded M/s. Trivesh Enterprises LLP v Vijay Eknath Kumbhar, The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/kalyan GST Department 2026-juristway.com-3111-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 22 October 2026 In M/s. Trivesh Enterprises LLP v. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Thane/Kalyan, 2026-juristway.com-3111-GSTAT(Thane)-GST , where a works contractor challenged denial of ITC of ₹4,89,456/- (FY 2020-21) and ₹6,80,142/- (FY 2021-22) on purchases from suppliers subsequently categorised as NGTPs with ab initio registration cancellation, the Tribunal found that the SCNs under the 'Brief Facts' and 'Grounds' sections contained only 'AS PER ATTACHMENT' without substantive reasoning, the OIO was a single-line disposal, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal concurrently on merits and for 'non-prosecution' despite written submissions and documentary evidence on record, held that dismissal for non-prosecution is legally unsustainable under Section 107(11)/(12) following Purushottam Stores (Patna HC) and CIT v. Premkumar Luthra (Bombay HC), and remanded for de novo adjudication. GSTAT · Thane ● Remanded Vikram Inderjit Kapur Director, M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd. v Rajesh Chandrakant Vishe The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur 2026-juristway.com-3110-GSTAT(Thane)-GST 22 October 2026 In Vikram Inderjit Kapur v. The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur, 2026-juristway.com-3110-GSTAT(Thane)-GST , where a 100% EOU manufacturing absorbent cotton challenged partial rejection of 39 refund claims (June 2019 to September 2022) for 'Mismatch of ITC' where the Adjudicating Authority directly issued RFD-06 without issuing the mandatory RFD-08 notice or affording hearing, the Tribunal held that Rule 92(3) with its proviso is mandatory (use of 'shall' and absolute embargo), that a foundational procedural defect cannot be cured by merely affording hearing at the appellate stage, that the Appellate Authority ought to have remanded instead of demanding documents and deciding on merits, and remanded all 39 matters for de novo processing with directions for strict compliance with Rule 92(3). GSTAT · Lucknow ● Allowed Ajit Kumar Minz v Natasha Automobiles Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3109-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 21 October 2026 In Ajit Kumar Minz v. Natasha Automobiles Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3109-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA which had set aside the demand of differential Compensation Cess of ₹25,66,695/- on Hyundai Creta, Alcazar and Tucson vehicles on the ground that their laden ground clearance was below 170 mm per ARAI certification, the Tribunal held that (i) Creta, Alcazar and Tucson are undeniably SUVs in commercial and common parlance as consistently marketed by the manufacturer, (ii) the default manufactured state of a motor vehicle is its unladen state and imposing a 'laden condition' reading would amount to judicially adding words to the notification contrary to Dilip Kumar (SC) and Leisureland (SC), (iii) the Mercedes-Benz (Bombay HC) and Tata Motors (Maharashtra AAAR) rulings are persuasive but non-binding and are irreconcilable with strict construction principles, (iv) ARAI certification is relevant as technical evidence but is not conclusive for tax classification, (v) CBIC Circular No. 247/2025 does not mandate laden measurement for the pre-amendment period, and allowed the Revenue's appeal restoring the OIO with demand, interest and penalty. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Remanded Nitin Bakers Private Limited v Vijay Singh Visen, Deputy Commissioner, Kanpur & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3108-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 21 October 2026 In Nitin Bakers Private Limited v. Vijay Singh Visen & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3108-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where a bakery manufacturer challenged the demand of ₹56,24,458/- (tax ₹26,47,563/-, interest ₹26,62,217/- and penalty ₹3,14,678/-) under Section 73 arising from scrutiny of FY 2018-19 returns, the Tribunal found that (i) the ITC mismatch demand of ₹2,589.62/- was raised without verifying that GSTR-3B Table 4(C) showed negative net ITC after reversals, (ii) the major demand of ₹25,93,217.12/- arose from an incorrect comparison of GSTR-9 Table 9 with GSTR-9C Table 9P without examining the explanation in Table 10, (iii) the Rule 42/43 demand was raised treating all ITC as common credit without segregation, set aside both orders and remanded for de novo adjudication with proper verification. HC · Madras ● Allowed Galore Networks Private Ltd., M. Raju S/o Malayappan, K Balaji S/o Kulothungan v The Assistant Commissioner ST, The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bengaluru, The Branch Manager Axis Bank Ltd., The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank, The Branch Manager Dbs Bank Ltd 2026-juristway.com-3107-HC(Madras)-GST 16 October 2026 In Galore Networks Private Ltd. & Ors. v. The Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3107-HC(Madras)-GST , where the petitioners challenged ex parte orders contending notices were uploaded only under the 'View Additional Notices and Orders' tab, the Court set aside the impugned orders, remanded for fresh consideration subject to 20% deposit within four weeks, directed de-freezure of bank accounts, and noted that for remaining unchallenged orders the petitioner agreed to pay tax in full. HC · Madras ● Partly Allowed M/s SPM Arts LLP Rep. by its Partner Sanjay Laalwani v M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures and 3 Others Rep. by its Partner Abishek Venkat Nama, Abhishek Venkat Nama Partner M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures, The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) Chennai-I, Chennai 2026-juristway.com-3106-HC(Madras)-GST 16 October 2026 In M/s SPM Arts LLP v. M/s. Shri Abishek Pictures & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3106-HC(Madras)-GST , where the plaintiff, having paid the entire consideration of ₹7.50 crore (inclusive of GST) for dubbing rights of the Telugu film 'Saakshyam' under a Deed of Assignment dated 05.02.2018 and Defendants 1 and 2 failed to remit the GST component of ₹42,85,714/- to the authorities resulting in proceedings against the plaintiff demanding ₹4,36,02,000/-, the Court decreed the suit in part against Defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally for ₹1,22,66,092/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of plaint till decree and 6% thereafter, holding the decree does not come in the way of statutory authorities proceeding against the plaintiff. GSTAT · Agra ● Remanded Satyendra Kumar Singh v Peoples Honda 2026-juristway.com-3105-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Satyendra Kumar Singh v. Peoples Honda, 2026-juristway.com-3105-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA which had set aside the Section 74 demand arising from a ₹14,19,144 adjustment in Column 5(O) of GSTR-9C relating to discounts/incentives from Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India, the Tribunal held that both lower authorities passed orders without adequate investigation, that Section 15(3) governs the supplier's taxable value and not the recipient's turnover, that the Department's new ground treating incentives as marketing services taxable under Section 7 was not in the SCN and therefore inadmissible, and remanded with specific directions for verification. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed Meraj Ahmad Proprietor M/s Meraj Brick Field v State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax and Registration Lko. and 3 Others 2026-juristway.com-3079-HC(Allahabad)-GST 16 October 2026 In Meraj Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3079-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the ex parte order dated 22.11.2025 under Section 73 for FY 2019-20 contending the order was not passed on the date fixed for hearing and no notice of the subsequent date was given, the Court followed its coordinate Bench ruling in M/s Shubham Steel Traders v. State of U.P. (2024:AHC:31108-DB) holding that by not passing the order on the fixed date and not communicating the next date, the authority forced the ex parte nature of the order on the petitioner by its own conduct, quashed the order, and directed the authority to grant personal hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. HC · Allahabad ● Allowed M/s Omega Slayers Private Limited Thru. Authorised Signatory Dev Gupta v Commissioner Commercial Tax State Tax Lko. and Another 2026-juristway.com-3078-HC(Allahabad)-GST 16 October 2026 In M/s Omega Slayers Private Limited v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Anr., 2026-juristway.com-3078-HC(Allahabad)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the penalty of ₹50,000/- (₹25,000/- CGST + ₹25,000/- UPGST) imposed under Section 125 for delayed filing of GSTR-3B for February 2025, the Court noted the return had been filed, the entire tax liability of ₹50,688/- discharged through ITC and late fee paid, held the penalty exceeded the statutory maximum under the UPGST Act, quashed the SCN and the penalty order, and disposed of the petition. HC · Gujarat ● Other Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh Proprietor of M/s Mustufa Sales Agency v State of Gujarat & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3077-HC(Gujarat)-GST 16 October 2026 In Mustufamiya Hussainmiya Shaikh v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3077-HC(Gujarat)-GST , where three personal hearing notices bearing different notice numbers were generated on the same date (16.04.2026), digitally signed within intervals of approximately two minutes, each fixing different hearing dates (18.04.2026, 21.04.2026 and 24.04.2026), the Court expressed shock at the portal permitting such manipulation, directed the Chief Commissioner of State Tax to file a report on the portal's functioning and the process of allowing officers to generate multiple notices on the same date, directed the appellate authority to pass a fresh appellate order, warned that exemplary costs would be imposed on the erring officer if the explanation is unsatisfactory, and listed the matter on 26.10.2026. HC · Bombay ● Allowed 1pay Mobileware Private Limited v Union of India (Through The Ministry of Finance) Mumbai, Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Hyderabad, Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) Mumbai, Principal Director DGGI Headquarters New Delhi 2026-juristway.com-3062-HC(Bombay)-GST 16 October 2026 In 1pay Mobileware Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3062-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the provisional attachment orders dated 04.09.2026 and 18.09.2026 passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act attaching its bank accounts, the Court applied the Supreme Court's test in Radha Krishan Industries holding that (i) the power under Section 83 is draconian, (ii) the Commissioner must form an opinion on tangible material that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand and that revenue cannot be protected without attachment, (iii) the petitioner had indicated willingness to cooperate regarding the 88 entities referred to, (iv) neither the impugned orders nor the affidavit-in-reply contained any such opinion based on tangible material, and (v) no GST liability on the petitioner had been established, allowed the petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (g), and set aside the attachment orders. GSTAT · Hyderabad ● Other P.K. Feeds & Manures v G. Narender, Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3061-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST 16 October 2026 In P.K. Feeds & Manures v. G. Narender, Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3061-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST , where the appellant sought urgent hearing and stay of the impugned order, the Tribunal noted the appellant had deposited 20% of the pre-deposit amount under Section 112(8), held that under Section 112(9) recovery proceedings for the balance are deemed stayed till dismissal of the appeal, disposed of the stay application as no separate order was necessary, and directed the respondents to comply with the statutory provisions. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Devendra Singh v Hema Industries 2026-juristway.com-3060-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Devendra Singh v. Hema Industries, 2026-juristway.com-3060-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 25.03.2023 which had set aside the reversal of ITC ordered by the proper officer on account of GSTR-2A mismatch and non-existence of the supplier, the Tribunal held that a bona fide purchaser cannot be penalised for the post-transaction disappearance of a registered supplier, that reversal of ITC from a GSTR-2A mismatch alone without examining other evidence is not sustainable, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal upholding the OIA. GSTAT · New Delhi-[PB] ● Other Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v Commissioner, CGST, Shimla Commissionerate, Himachal Pradesh, Commissioner-CGST Dimapur, Nagaland Commissioner, CGST, Aizawl, Mizoram. Commissioner-Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pr. Commissioner, CGST, Patna-1 Commissionerate, Bihar Pr. Commissioner, GST & CE, Puducherry Commissionerate, Puducherry. and Others 2026-juristway.com-3059-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST 16 October 2026 In Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited v. Commissioner, CGST, Shimla Commissionerate & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3059-GSTAT(New Delhi-[PB])-GST , where appeals filed by Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited were pending before multiple GSTAT state benches across Shimla, Dimapur, Aizawl, Raipur, Patna, Puducherry, Jaipur, Chennai, Hyderabad, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Dhanbad, Lucknow, Chandigarh and other locations, the President of GSTAT ordered transfer of all connected appeals to the Principal Bench, holding that where appeals pending before two or more state benches involve identical questions of law, only the Principal Bench has jurisdiction, and directed communication of the order to all Vice Presidents at the concerned state benches. GSTAT · Prayagraj ● Allowed Gp Motors Private Limited v Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3058-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST 16 October 2026 In Gp Motors Private Limited v. Commissioner, State Tax Lucknow & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3058-GSTAT(Prayagraj)-GST , where the appellant, a motor vehicle dealer, challenged the penalty of ₹1,96,000/- imposed under Section 129 for transporting vehicles between its own branches without generating an e-way bill, the Tribunal held that the movement was an undisputed stock transfer attracting no tax liability, that the virtual impossibility of tax evasion in stock transfers of uniquely identifiable registered motor vehicles and the absence of fraudulent intent ruled out penal measures under Section 129, quashed the penalty, and directed refund of any deposited amount with applicable interest. HC · Bombay ● Allowed Abracadabra India and Ors. v The Union of India & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST 16 October 2026 In Abracadabra India and Ors. v. The Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3039-HC(Bombay)-GST , where the petitioner challenged the order dated 31.03.2023 demanding ₹62,42,948/- as tax, interest and penalty, contending that the SCN and ASMT-10 notices were placed only in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' section in the Services tab of the GST portal and were not visible on the homepage under 'View Notices and Orders', the Court followed the Division Bench ruling in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175) to hold that no mistake could be attributed to the petitioner, quashed the impugned order, the DRC-07 dated 31.03.2023 and the recovery letter dated 17.11.2023, directed both parties to appear before the respondent on 27.10.2026, and permitted fresh proceedings keeping the question of limitation open. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Rahul Kumar Dwivedi v. M/s. Shri Shyam Kripa Associates, 2026-juristway.com-3038-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 13.06.2025 which had set aside the demand of excess ITC of ₹20,81,660/- and disallowed banking ITC of ₹9,184.92/- under Section 73, the Tribunal held that the taxpayer was entitled to claim deferred ITC for FY 2017-18 in FY 2019-20 under the retrospectively inserted Section 16(5) of the CGST Act (per A2Z Infra Engineering Ltd., Sikkim HC), that the GSTR-2A/GSTR-3B mismatch was a reconciliation issue as clarified in CBIC Circular Nos. 183/15/2022-GST and 193/05/2023-GST, and that Section 17(5) does not bar ITC on banking services received in furtherance of business, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Associated Cashews v The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Associated Cashews v. The Commissioner of CGST Thiruvananthapuram, 2026-juristway.com-3037-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, an exporter of cashew kernels, challenged the rejection of refund of ₹19,79,405/- (November 2018: ₹5,26,330/-, December 2018: ₹9,19,176/-, February 2019: ₹5,33,899/-) being IGST originally paid on exports but reported in the wrong GSTR-3B column (Table 3.1(a) instead of 3.1(b)), which prevented automated Customs refund and necessitated a second payment in August 2019 that was subsequently refunded, the Tribunal found that the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) had mechanically rejected the appeals without examining the GST returns, relied on Article 265 of the Constitution and the Orissa HC ruling in Rajendra Narayan Mohanty to hold that excess paid tax cannot be retained by the Government, quashed the OIA dated 31.10.2022, and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. GSTAT · Thiruvananthapuram ● Allowed Oxygen The Digital Shop v The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, Thiruvananthapuram. 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST 16 October 2026 In Oxygen The Digital Shop v. The Commissioner of Keralam State GST, 2026-juristway.com-3036-GSTAT(Thiruvananthapuram)-GST , where the appellant, a partnership firm trading in digital gadgets, challenged the denial of ITC of ₹11,22,940/- (CGST ₹5,61,470/- and SGST ₹5,61,470/-) on four invoices for joinery, carpentry and painting services (SAC 995476/995473) procured for interior furnishing of two rented showrooms, the Tribunal held that the Explanation to Section 17(5)(c)/(d) restricts ITC on construction, renovation, additions or alterations only to the extent of capitalisation to immovable property, that the CA certificate confirmed the GST component was not capitalised and was accounted separately as ITC with no depreciation claimed thereon, and that the expenditure was classified under Furniture and Fixtures as movable assets, set aside the impugned order and allowed the ITC claim with consequential relief. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Ashok Kumar Singh v M/s. Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited 2026-juristway.com-3035-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Ashok Kumar Singh v. M/s. Safecon Lifesciences Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3035-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 13.10.2021 (incorrectly stated as 23.11.2022 in the order) which had set aside the demand of tax ₹3,83,400/- plus equal penalty and interest imposed under Section 74 for alleged ITC availed on invoices from M/s Neon Pharma Chem (Maharashtra), the Tribunal found that the taxpayer had produced purchase orders, tax invoices, e-way bills, consignment documents with vehicle particulars, banking-channel payments and supplier's GSTR-1/GSTR-3B returns, that the supplier's registration which had been cancelled was subsequently restored by the jurisdictional authority thereby nullifying the bogus-supplier allegation, and that the first appellate authority had forwarded the evidence to the adjudicating authority for a report before deciding the appeal, dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the OIA. GSTAT · Agra ● Dismissed Sanjeev Kumar Singh v M/s. Crown Glass Industries 2026-juristway.com-3034-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Sanjeev Kumar Singh v. M/s. Crown Glass Industries, 2026-juristway.com-3034-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 04.12.2024 which had set aside the penalty and fine imposed under Section 130(2) read with Section 122 after SIB Mainpuri found unaccounted raw material worth ₹10,83,502/- during inspection of the respondent's glass manufacturing premises, the Tribunal held, relying on Allahabad HC decisions in Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar, Shri Om Steels and V.K. Electricals, that where excess or unaccounted stock is found during survey of business premises, the proper officer is empowered only to initiate proceedings under Section 73/74 read with Section 35(6), and not under Section 130, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal as sans merit. GSTAT · Lucknow ● Remanded Kunwar Mrityunjay v M/s. Deepak Lamination 2026-juristway.com-3033-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST 16 October 2026 In Kunwar Mrityunjay v. M/s. Deepak Lamination, 2026-juristway.com-3033-GSTAT(Lucknow)-GST , where the Revenue appealed against the OIA dated 28.02.2024 which had allowed the respondent's ITC claim of ₹67,500/- on purchases from M/s M.H. Enterprises (found non-existent by SIB), the Tribunal extensively analysed the Gujarat HC ruling in Maruti Enterprises and the Jaipur HC ruling in Sumetco Alloys on the cumulative and mandatory nature of Section 16(2) conditions, held that the First Appellate Authority had confined its analysis to the supplier's active portal status without examining actual movement of goods under Section 16(2)(b), and that the OIO similarly lacked adequate findings on the documentary evidence, set aside both orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication with directions to verify e-way bills, transport documents and all evidence and afford the respondent effective opportunity of hearing. GSTAT · Agra ● Allowed Trishul Asphalt Products v Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeals Mathura & Ors. 2026-juristway.com-3032-GSTAT(Agra)-GST 16 October 2026 In Trishul Asphalt Products v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 Appeals Mathura & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3032-GSTAT(Agra)-GST , where the appellant's first appeal against order dated 26.02.2022 was filed under the amnesty scheme (Notification No. 53/2023) on 31.01.2024 but was dismissed as time-barred because the entire 12.5% pre-deposit was debited from the electronic credit ledger instead of the prescribed split of 2.5% from the electronic cash ledger, the Tribunal relied on M/s Friends Mobile v. State of Bihar (Patna HC) and M/s Raiyan Traders v. Assistant Commissioner (Patna HC) to hold that the GST portal's technical glitch preventing ledger selection cannot prejudice the statutory remedy of appeal, set aside the OIA dated 25.09.2024, granted 30 days to pay the shortfall cash component, and directed the first appellate authority to admit and decide the appeal afresh on merits. SC ● Remanded Senior Intelligence Officer v Mohammed Kamran 2026-juristway.com-3023-SC-GST 16 October 2026 In “Senior Intelligence Officer v. Mohammed Kamran, 2026-juristway.com-3023-SC-GST” , where the proprietor of M/s MK Traders, arrested on 16.09.2025 on a complaint alleging fake invoices and fraudulent ITC under Sections 132(1)(b), (c) and (f), obtained bail from a Single Judge on 26.12.2025 in a petition listed during the winter vacation on his memo although the Department had been given two weeks to object, and had meanwhile pursued bail before the Sessions Court and release in a writ petition in which ad-interim relief was refused on 22.12.2025 without disclosing these to the bail court, the Court, after viewing the recording of the hearing, found that the Department’s counsel had sought an adjournment and then assisted the court, but held that the respondent had engaged in forum shopping, suppressed material facts and lacked uberrima fides. Without cancelling bail outright, it set aside the disposal of the criminal petition, revived it before the same Single Judge to be decided on merits preferably by the end of the year, continued the respondent on interim bail on earlier terms, and allowed the Department two weeks to file a counter affidavit. Load more
