9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleging non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner - A perusal of the averments in para 7.1 indicates the said summons was issued only in view of the statement made by Shri Piyush Patel which was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act 2017, that the decision regarding payment of taxes and claiming of exemption was taken by the director Ms. Tanuja Gomes. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the Petitioner and the affidavit filed by Mr. Piyush Patel, the averments made by the Respondents in para 7.1 of the reply are denied. The Respondents are directed to inform the Petitioner the list of further documents required to be produced by the Petitioner and other requisite queries to which, they seek clarifications from the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of four days from the date of receipt of the Notice. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that it has submitted various documents from time to time to the Respondents. Respondent No.3 issued a summons on the Petitioner on 15 December 2021, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short the said GST Act) to remain present before Respondent No.3 on 16 December 2021 at 11.20 a.m. The said summons were issued to the Petitioner company without any details of the inquiry. The Petitioner deputed Mr. Piyush Patel, Accounts Manager of the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said Piyush Patel was grilled and interrogated for a period of about five hours from 4.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. and was subjected to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld remain present before the Authority in response to the said summons in accordance with law. 9. Mr. Jitendra Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents disputes that the Petitioner has furnished all the documents called upon by the Respondents. He relied upon the averments made in affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondents. 10. A perusal of the reply to the question 34 of FAQs dated 15 December 2018, issued by GST Department would clearly indicate that issuance of summons is a last resort and are not issued in a casual manner. There are no allegations made by the Respondents alleging non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner. 11. A perusal of the averments in para 7.1 indicates the said summons was issued only in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner shall be still called for recording of evidence after furnishing of the documents and information by the Consultant of the Petitioner. (d) If any summons is issued by the Respondents, the summons shall indicate the purpose of issuing summons to the Petitioner with clear seven days notice before fixing the date for recording the statement of the said Director Ms. Tanuja Gomes. Ms. Tanuja Gomes shall appear before the Authorities on the appointed date and cooperate with the Respondents in recording her evidence. 13. The impugned summons dated 23 December 2021 issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, Director of the Petitioner company would not survive in view of the undertaking given by the Petitioner and in view of the aforesaid directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
