2020 (3) TMI 1346 - HC - GST

Seeking to conclude the process of adjudication within the shortest possible time - petition has a chequered history - handing over copies of documents seized by the Respondent from the Petitioner during a search - HELD THAT - The Court is of the considered view that the search proceedings which took place on 7th March, 2020 without the authority of law and cannot be sustained. The Panchnama drawn up on 7th March, 2020 is hereby quashed - Notwithstanding that Petitioner No.2 may have earlier appeared pursuant to the summons issued and may have provided documents, it is directed that the Petitioner No. 2 will now appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer of the DGGSTI at Gurugram on 25 th March, 2020 at 11 a.m. He will be provided with the list of documents/ information that is required by the Respondents and Petitioner No.2 will cooperate in providing that information within a reasonable time to be provided to him by the Respondents. In order to ensure that there is strict compliance with the above directions, the Court lists the present petition for further hearing on 17 th April, 2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking directions to conclude adjudication process and hand over seized documents.
2. Safeguard from arrest and future apprehension.
3. Legality of conducting a search without following due process.
4. Cooperation of petitioners with the investigation.

Issue 1:
The petition initially sought directions for the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence to conclude the adjudication process promptly and provide copies of seized documents. The court noted the circumstances under which the petition was filed, emphasizing the main prayer related to the handing over of seized documents.

Issue 2:
Regarding the safeguard from arrest, the court clarified that no personal appearance of the Managing Director was required, and any future apprehension of arrest would be in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of, limiting the attachment to specific amounts in the petitioner's accounts.

Issue 3:
A subsequent summons was issued to the Managing Director, leading to another writ petition. The court disposed of this petition, emphasizing that the Managing Director need not appear personally if a representative could answer queries. However, a search was conducted at the Managing Director's residential premises without following due process, leading to a challenge in the present petition.

Issue 4:
The petitioners expressed willingness to cooperate with the respondents but argued that the search without following due process was unnecessary. The respondents highlighted that the petitioner's representative was uncooperative, leading to the search. The court acknowledged the need for investigation to proceed lawfully and directed the Managing Director to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer to provide the required information.

In conclusion, the court quashed the search conducted without legal authority and directed the cooperation of the petitioners in providing necessary information. The court scheduled a further hearing to ensure compliance with the directions and warned against coercive steps if cooperation was lacking.