In an economic-offence investigation, the HC treated a seven-day prior notice requirement before coercive action as a limited safeguard, not anticipatory bail or blanket protection from arrest. Because the matter was still at the summons stage and no proposal for prior approval to arrest had been moved, the Court held that investigation could continue and the respondents had to join as called. The Department remained free to proceed in accordance with law if they did not cooperate. The challenge to the notice direction failed and the petitions were dismissed.
In an economic-offence investigation, the HC treated a seven-day prior notice requirement before coercive action as a limited safeguard, not anticipatory bail or blanket protection from arrest. Because the matter was still at the summons stage and no proposal for prior approval to arrest had been moved, the Court held that investigation could continue and the respondents had to join as called. The Department remained free to proceed in accordance with law if they did not cooperate. The challenge to the notice direction failed and the petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
