Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Judge, J
Petitioner No.1 – Appellant
Versus
Respondent – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the notice and seizure of documents. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the notices and seizure. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. counterarguments presented by the respondent's counsel. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's observations on mandatory notices under cr.p.c. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. final directive for petitioners to appear for statements. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘ Cr.P.C .’) to quash the proceedings in summons dated 15.06.2024 passed by the Office of the Commissioner, Secunderabad CGST Commissionerate.
3. The brief facts of the cases are that petitioner No.2 is a company and petitioner No.1 is the Director of petitioner No.2-company in all the cases. On 07.06.2024, the respondent issued notice to petitioner No.1 under Section 70 of CGST Act directing him to appear before the respondent on 10.06.2024 to produce the details of invoices pertaining to inward and outward supplies of petitioner No.2 companies. But the notice was not handed over to petitioner No.1 as he was out of station. On the same day i.e., 07.06.2024, without any pri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
