9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g before the investigating officer and making his statement setting out facts that are within his knowledge. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P.(Crl.) 1673/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2017 - MR. R.K. GAUBA J. Petitioner Through: Ms. Anjali J. Manish Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr. Rishabh Sahu Mr. Sameer Sharma, Advs. For R-1. Ms. Kamna Vohra, ASC for State/R-2. Mr. Aditya Singla, Sr. Standing Counsel for R-3 4 ORDER (ORAL) MR. R.K. GAUBA J. 1. The petitioner herein has been summoned by the fourth respondent in ongoing investigation in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence case, the process having been issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. By the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her witnesses. It is the submission of the respondents that the statements of some witnesses recorded have brought out active participation in the said business, particularly the transactions in question, on the part of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner received inward credit into his account amounts over ₹ 5.70 crores, substantially from the account of the afore-mentioned firm, for which there is no explanation has been offered. 4. The petitioner s case is that the act of the respondents in issuing summons to the petitioner is mala fide, the manner of issuing summons and its service being improper and that the action is vitiated and, therefore, the summons deserve to be quashed. The prayer for presence of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the business activity or that he had no connection with the firm in question. Since the investigating agency seems to have in its possession material showing facts prima facie, to the contrary, the petitioner cannot ward off scrutiny including by he himself being questioned. Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be answered in the manner sought to be responded to. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner to respond to the said summons by appearing before the investigating officer and making his statement setting out facts that are within his knowledge. 7. The respondents contest vociferously insistence on the presence of a counsel at the time of questioning of the petitioner. It was argued that such presence may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
