9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.7.2019 in the factory premises of the petitioner. The search was in connection with investigation going on for availing ineligible drawback and IGST by way of accumulating ITC by procuring fake purchase bills by M/s Worldwide Tradelinks, Ludhiana and M/s NMR Knitfab Private Limited, Ludhiana. The petitioner had supplied material to said dealers. During search, record was seized and panchnama prepared. On 1.10.2019, following order was passed: "Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sunish Bindlish, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pursuant to the last order the petitioner had approached the concerned Intelligence Officer wherein photocopies of files No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the contents in the panchnama, quoted below: "On being asked by the DRI officers Sh. Kanav Khanna told DRI officers in front of us the panchas that he has sold knitted T-shirts/shirts only to M/s Worldwide Tradelinks, Ludhiana during the year 2018-19 and M/s NMR Knitfab Private Limited, Ludhiana during the year 2017-18 and only bills of the said goods has been given to both the parties and no material was supplied." Learned counsel for the respondents states that no grievance survives as on date for the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction, as copies of the record and documents have been provided, the petitioner would have full opportunity if a show cause notice is issued after completion of the investigation. It is further argue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion does not restrict the search only with regard to importer or exporter, the other premises can also be searched. The petitioner was a supplier/seller to the exporters at Ludhiana, there was an investigation that ineligible drawback etc. had been claimed by procuring only the bills without there being transfer of goods, this establishes the relevance of search with proceedings under the Act. The argument that the contents quoted above were added by the officials of DRI of their own, is a disputed question of fact. The petitioner had written letter stating that there is a mistake in panchnama in recording the contents and same may be rectified. The said aspect cannot be gone into at this stage and would not be a reason to quash the panch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
