Managing Director is summon
Case Title | Sumaya Industries Ltd vs Union of India & Ors |
Court | Bombay High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice R.D.Dhanuka & Justice S.M.Modak |
Citation | 2022 (1) GSTPanacea 279 HC Bombay WPL 30285 of 2021 |
Judgement Date | 31-January-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Abhishek A.Rastogi Mahir Chablani Kanika Sharma |
Council for Respondent | Pradeep S.Jetly Jitendra B.Mishra Dhananjay B.Deshmukh Dushyant Kumar |
Section | Section 70 of CGST Act |
In Favour of | In Favour of Respondent |
The Bombay High Court bench of Justice R.D.Dhanuka & Justice S.M.Modak has held that Court has not granted any stay of the summons or any other proceedings proposed to be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner during the pendency of this petition till next date. Managing director can be summoned.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner file petition that the Managing Director of the petitioner may not be a competent witness. The Group Chief Finance Officer can be asked to appear before the authority in response to the summons.
The petitioner challenges the power of the authority under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at the first instance to issue such summons on the ground that the State GST authority has already blocked the utilized ITC to the tune of Rs.1.57 crores in terms of rule 86A of the CGST Rules on 24th January, 2020 and 25th January, 2020.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has paid/deposited the substantial amount with the authority under the State GST Act as well as deposited various amounts with the respondent no.5.
It is submitted that though the managing director of the petitioner has appeared in response to the writ petition issued to him by the respondent no.5 once, since he is not a competent authority, he is not liable to appear in response to the said summons.
Managing Director is summon
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that Court has not granted any stay of the summons or any other proceedings proposed to be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner during the pendency of this petition till next date.
Managing Director is summon
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
Petitioner state that the Managing Director of the petitioner may not be a competent witness. The Group Chief Finance Officer can be asked to appear before the authority in response to the summons.
Court has grantted the respondents four weeks time to file affidavit in reply which shall be served upon the petitioner’s advocate simultaneously.
It is made clear that this Court has not granted any stay of the summons or any other proceedings proposed to be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner during the pendency of this petition till next date.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: