2020 (3) TMI 1346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tory. Petitioner No.1/Company was earlier before this Court with CWP No.18523 of 2019 which was disposed of by an order dated 18th February, 2020, noting the circumstances under which the Petitioner had approached the Court seeking directions to the Respondent i.e. the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Gurugram, to conclude the process of adjudication within the shortest possible time after issuing a show cause notice etc. The Court noted that the main prayer in the petition was about the Respondent handing over copies of documents seized by the Respondent from the Petitioner during a search conducted on 9th July, 2018 at the Head Office as well as godown of the Petitioner. 4. On the issue of safeguard from arres....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner is that the Managing Director has already appeared 10 times. Today the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing with Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Panel Counsel has very fairly stated that as per the last summons which were served upon to the petitioner (which he has received) it has been clarified that the Managing Director need not appear in person but the representative who appears with the documents must be in a position to answer the queries, and in the absence thereof the requirement for the presence of the Managing Director may arise. In view of this clarification nothing survives. Petition stands disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mation are sought for and that there was no warrant whatsoever to resort to the extreme measure of a search only to record a statement of the Managing Director of the Petitioner No.1. 11. Mr. Sourabh Goel, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the authorized representative of Petitioner No.1, who had earlier appeared before the Respondents, was not cooperative and was not providing the requisite information sought for by the Respondents. It is further pointed out that a different officer of Petitioner No.1 appears on each occasion and is unable to provide requisite information. 12. However, Mr. Goel does not dispute that the procedure outlined under Section 67 of the Act was perhaps not resorted to in....