https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417877 The HC addressed a challenge to CGST authorities' power to issue summons under section 70 and the competency of a Managing Director to respond. The court granted respondents four weeks to file an affidavit in reply, with provision for rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Notably, no stay was granted on the summons or other proceedings during the petition's pendency. The court directed respondents to address in their affidavit the petitioner's request for copies of the Panchanama. The Group Chief Finance Officer was proposed as an alternative witness to cooperate with authorities instead of the Managing Director. en-us Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Apr 2025 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417877 The HC addressed a challenge to CGST authorities' power to issue summons under section 70 and the competency of a Managing Director to respond. The court granted respondents four weeks to file an affidavit in reply, with provision for rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Notably, no stay was granted on the summons or other proceedings during the petition's pendency. The court directed respondents to address in their affidavit the petitioner's request for copies of the Panchanama. The Group Chief Finance Officer was proposed as an alternative witness to cooperate with authorities instead of the Managing Director. Case-Laws GST Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417877