https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199761 Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was construed as a machinery provision empowering an officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary for evidence or documents. The Court held that the provision does not require prior disclosure of the precise investigation, target, or subject matter, and principles applicable to provisions demanding recorded reasons or prior satisfaction could not be imported. A speaking summons or disclosure of necessity would risk frustrating investigation and compromising evidence. The summons was therefore held valid, and the challenge failed. en-us Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:11:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199761 Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was construed as a machinery provision empowering an officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary for evidence or documents. The Court held that the provision does not require prior disclosure of the precise investigation, target, or subject matter, and principles applicable to provisions demanding recorded reasons or prior satisfaction could not be imported. A speaking summons or disclosure of necessity would risk frustrating investigation and compromising evidence. The summons was therefore held valid, and the challenge failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199761