Facts: Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, sought pre-arrest bail and protection from coercive action by authorities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Patels firm had its registration cancelled, and its bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, due to suspicions of availing fake ITC from non-existent suppliers. Despite multiple summons, Patel failed to participate in investigations and prove the existence of the entities involved.
Decision: The Court dismissed Patels petition, citing his conduct of availing ineligible ITC as fraudulent, violating provisions of the CGST Act. Patels failure to comply with CGST Act provisions justified the cancellation of registration and attachment of his bank account. The Court held that Patels actions violated Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, and his failure to participate in investigations or provide evidence led to the dismissal of his petition for protection.

Facts: Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, sought pre-arrest bail and protection from coercive action by authorities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Patels firm had its registration cancelled, and its bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, due to suspicions of availing fake ITC from non-existent suppliers. Despite multiple summons, Patel failed to participate in investigations and prove the existence of the entities involved.
Decision: The Court dismissed Patels petition, citing his conduct of availing ineligible ITC as fraudulent, violating provisions of the CGST Act. Patels failure to comply with CGST Act provisions justified the cancellation of registration and attachment of his bank account. The Court held that Patels actions violated Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, and his failure to participate in investigations or provide evidence led to the dismissal of his petition for protection.

Facts: Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, sought pre-arrest bail and protection from coercive action by authorities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Patels firm had its registration cancelled, and its bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, due to suspicions of availing fake ITC from non-existent suppliers. Despite multiple summons, Patel failed to participate in investigations and prove the existence of the entities involved.
Decision: The Court dismissed Patels petition, citing his conduct of availing ineligible ITC as fraudulent, violating provisions of the CGST Act. Patels failure to comply with CGST Act provisions justified the cancellation of registration and attachment of his bank account. The Court held that Patels actions violated Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, and his failure to participate in investigations or provide evidence led to the dismissal of his petition for protection.

Facts: Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, sought pre-arrest bail and protection from coercive action by authorities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Patels firm had its registration cancelled, and its bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, due to suspicions of availing fake ITC from non-existent suppliers. Despite multiple summons, Patel failed to participate in investigations and prove the existence of the entities involved.
Decision: The Court dismissed Patels petition, citing his conduct of availing ineligible ITC as fraudulent, violating provisions of the CGST Act. Patels failure to comply with CGST Act provisions justified the cancellation of registration and attachment of his bank account. The Court held that Patels actions violated Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, and his failure to participate in investigations or provide evidence led to the dismissal of his petition for protection.

Facts: Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, sought pre-arrest bail and protection from coercive action by authorities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Patels firm had its registration cancelled, and its bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, due to suspicions of availing fake ITC from non-existent suppliers. Despite multiple summons, Patel failed to participate in investigations and prove the existence of the entities involved.
Decision: The Court dismissed Patels petition, citing his conduct of availing ineligible ITC as fraudulent, violating provisions of the CGST Act. Patels failure to comply with CGST Act provisions justified the cancellation of registration and attachment of his bank account. The Court held that Patels actions violated Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, and his failure to participate in investigations or provide evidence led to the dismissal of his petition for protection.

Facts: Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, sought pre-arrest bail and protection from coercive action by authorities under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. Patels firm had its registration cancelled, and its bank account attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, due to suspicions of availing fake ITC from non-existent suppliers. Despite multiple summons, Patel failed to participate in investigations and prove the existence of the entities involved.
Decision: The Court dismissed Patels petition, citing his conduct of availing ineligible ITC as fraudulent, violating provisions of the CGST Act. Patels failure to comply with CGST Act provisions justified the cancellation of registration and attachment of his bank account. The Court held that Patels actions violated Section 16(2) of the CGST Act, and his failure to participate in investigations or provide evidence led to the dismissal of his petition for protection.