TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Anticipatory Bail Sought in GST Probe: Petitioner Challenges Potential Arrest, HC Issues Notice for Further Proceedings</h1> <h3>RAJAN RAJKUMAR SHARMA @ RAJAN SHARMA Versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE</h3> HC addressed a writ petition challenging potential arrest in a GST investigation. The petitioner sought to prevent arrest and expressed concerns about ... Seeking to prevent the arrest in connection with an investigation and summon issued - it is submitted that as of today, the petitioner cannot claim any apprehension, since no statement as yet has been recorded under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and that the apprehension is misplaced - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. List on 28.11.2023. The Delhi High Court, presided over by HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, addressed a writ petition (W.P.(CRL) 3137/2023) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, alongside Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to prevent arrest in connection with an investigation (DGGI/INV/GST/3370/2023-INV-O/OPRDG-DGGI-HQ-DELHI) and was summoned to appear before authorities on October 3, 2023.The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Ashish Mohan, argued there was a 'real apprehension' of arrest due to the co-Director's prior arrest and subsequent release in Surat, Gujarat, after four months of incarceration. Despite the petitioner's willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the counsel expressed concerns about potential arrest.Conversely, Mr. Harpreet Singh, representing the respondent, contended that the petitioner had not appeared in response to the summons on the specified date, and instead, a counsel appeared seeking more time. He argued that the petitioner's apprehension was 'misplaced' as no statement had been recorded under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.The court issued a notice, with Mr. Harpreet Singh accepting it, and allowed three weeks for a reply. The matter is scheduled for listing on November 28, 2023.
TaxTMI 
