9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be) to issue a summons to a person. Mere fact that the reply has been filed and the requisite documents as required in first summons have been furnished, does not absolve the petitioner of his statutory obligation to honour the summons. Nor does it take away right of the authorised officer to call upon the petitioner to appear before him - Petitioner s argument that the summons issued to the petitioner which does not append the schedule and list of documents is illegal, is preposterous. When the authorised officer needs only petitioner s presence, it is not necessary to append the list of documents and the schedule - Petitioner simply wants to avoid summons by way of taking hyper technical pleas, which too have no substance. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned summons does not conform to the mandatory provisions and hence, liable to be quashed. 4. While arguing that pursuant to first summons issued to the petitioner, his brother has filed a detailed reply along with all the documents, learned counsel argued that issuance of second summons to the petitioner is arbitrary exercise of powers, the same, therefore, deserves to quashed. 5. Heard. 6. On perusal of the impugned summons dated 31.08.2022, it reveals that the petitioner has been asked to appear before the Investigating Officer on 15.09.2022. At this juncture it will be important to reproduce relevant part of Section 50 the Act of 2002 and Rule 11 of the Rues of 2005:- 50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reply has been filed and the requisite documents as required in first summons have been furnished, does not absolve the petitioner of his statutory obligation to honour the summons. Nor does it take away right of the authorised officer to call upon the petitioner to appear before him. 9. Petitioner s argument that the summons issued to the petitioner which does not append the schedule and list of documents is illegal, is preposterous. The Rule cannot be read mechanically, if the respondent No.2 does not require production of any document or he proposes to examine the petitioner on oath, obviously, the schedule or list of documents becomes redundant and thus, in such contingencies, schedule part of the Form V can be omitted. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
