9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1032 - HC - GSTValidity of summons issued u/s 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - abuse and threat in course of a search of the premises - HELD THAT - It is only in exceptional circumstances that interference with a summons would be justified an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. In the case at hand the petitioner urges such interference largely on the ground that a police complaint was lodged earlier against the fifth respondent. On instructions learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submits that the relevant file was transferred from the fifth respondent and therefore the petitioner would be submitting a reply to and appearing before a different officer. In these circumstances the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved: Challenge to summons issued u/s 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Allegations of abuse and threat during search; Police complaint and complaint to Central GST authorities; Interference with summons based on prior complaints.
Summary: The petitioner, claiming ownership of a property leased to a business, challenged a summons issued u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, alleging abuse and threat during a search. The petitioner filed a police complaint and a complaint to Central GST authorities against the fifth respondent. The petitioner contended that being summoned to appear before the fifth respondent, against whom allegations were made, was objectionable. The petitioner's counsel argued that the summons was issued after the police complaint and complaint to GST authorities were submitted. The senior standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4 submitted material implicating a person named Mr. Ramesh, justifying the summons to the petitioner. The Court noted that interference with a summons is justified only in exceptional circumstances. The petitioner's main objection was the prior police complaint against the fifth respondent. However, it was clarified that the relevant file had been transferred, and the petitioner would be replying to a different officer. The Court disposed of the petition by allowing the petitioner to reply to the summons and participate in the proceedings, closing the related motions without costs.
|
