TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Challenges GST Inquiry Procedure, Court Upholds Investigative Authority's Right to Summon and Conduct Comprehensive Examination</h1> <h3>Sridhar Versus The Superintendent of GST Cuddalore</h3> HC of Madras dismissed a Criminal Original Petition alleging harassment during a GST case enquiry. The court found the term 'harassment' subjective and ... Harrasement or not - petitioner submitted that under the production of summons, the petitioner is forced to give an undertaking to pay the tax of a sum of Rs.29 lakhs, whereas the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that despite several opportunities were given, the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his case - HELD THAT:- The term harassment is so subjective which cannot be encapsulated in objective criterion. The petitioner having received summons from the respondent, is bound to cooperate for enquiry. Admittedly, the enquiry is pending. Without cooperating with the respondent, they cannot seek such a blanket direction. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Issues:1. Alleged harassment during GST case enquiry.Analysis:The High Court of Madras, in the judgment delivered by Honorable Mr. Justice N. Sathish Kumar, addressed a Criminal Original Petition concerning the alleged harassment of the petitioner during an enquiry related to a GST case involving Kalki Traders. The petitioner, represented by Mr. R.N. Amarnath, sought a direction to prevent harassment by the respondent, represented by Mr. N.P. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for GST.The petitioner claimed that under the production of summons, they were compelled to provide an undertaking to pay a tax amount of Rs.29 lakhs. On the other hand, the respondent argued that despite multiple opportunities, the petitioner failed to produce any supporting documents for their case. The court emphasized that the term 'harassment' is subjective and cannot be precisely defined objectively. It was noted that since the enquiry was ongoing, the petitioner, having lodged a complaint, was obligated to cooperate with the authorities. The court stated that without such cooperation, a blanket direction against alleged harassment could not be granted.Consequently, the court dismissed the prayer sought by the petitioner, leading to the rejection of the Criminal Original Petition. The order directed the Police to issue a notice within two weeks to summon the petitioner for the enquiry. Following the enquiry, the Police could either register a complaint if a cognizable offense was established or close the complaint accordingly.In a subsequent mention of the matter under Crl.O.P.No.7736 of 2022, the court clarified an error in the previous order where 'Police' was mistakenly mentioned instead of the 'respondent/the Superintendent GST.' The court reiterated the subjective nature of harassment and the petitioner's obligation to cooperate with the respondent during the enquiry process. The revised order emphasized that without such cooperation, the requested blanket direction against alleged harassment could not be granted. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the respondent was instructed to issue a notice to summon the petitioner for the enquiry, allowing further legal action as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
