TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after the first intelligence-based investigation was initiated by the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate, other GST intelligence units could continue parallel searches and investigation against the petitioner. (ii) Whether interim protection was warranted against coercive action and repeated searches, including at the residence of the proprietor, on the ground of invasion of privacy.
Issue (i): Whether, after the first intelligence-based investigation was initiated by the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate, other GST intelligence units could continue parallel searches and investigation against the petitioner.
Analysis: The circular dated 05.10.2018 was read to mean that once an authority initiates intelligence-based enforcement action, it is empowered to carry the investigation to its logical conclusion. On that basis, the Court found a prima facie case that the other intelligence units ought to have refrained from continuing parallel action after the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate had commenced the investigation. The contrary submission based on a difference in subject matter was not accepted at this stage.
Conclusion: The petitioner was held to have made out a prima facie case that further parallel investigation by other units should be restrained, and the investigation was to proceed only through the Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate in the meantime.
Issue (ii): Whether interim protection was warranted against coercive action and repeated searches, including at the residence of the proprietor, on the ground of invasion of privacy.
Analysis: The repeated searches at the business premises and at the residential premises, coupled with the number and frequency of searches already carried out, were treated as sufficient to justify interim protection. The Court also directed that any search activity should be conducted without invading privacy.
Conclusion: Interim relief against coercive measures was granted, and the respondents were directed to ensure that any further search did not amount to invasion of privacy.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained interim protection, with further coercive action restrained for the time being and the investigation channelled through the original commissionerate pending reply.
Ratio Decidendi: Where intelligence-based enforcement action has already been initiated by one competent GST authority, parallel action by other units may be restrained at the interim stage, and repeated searches must conform to proportionality and privacy constraints.
TaxTMI 
