M/S Rci Industries And Technologies LTD. Through Its Director Rajiv Gupta vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence, Gurugram And Others

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel stated that copies of the documents had been handed over. Regarding the apprehension of arrest, the Revenue clarified that the Managing Director's personal appearance was not required as per a summons dated 06.02.2020, and any future action would be in accordance with the law. The Court directed that the attachment of funds would be limited to the amounts lying to the credit of the petitioner in their Cash Credit Accounts (CC A/c) at the time of freezing. Any further credits to these accounts would not be under attachment. The petition was disposed of based on these directions and clarifications.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking to quash an order dated 07.06.2019. They also sought directions for the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI) to supply certified copies of seized documents, refrain from demanding information not in the petitioner's possession, and conclude adjudication proceedings promptly. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction restraining coercive action against its directors/staff under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act, pending the final disposal of the petition. The DGGI had conducted a search on 09.07.2018 at the petitioner's head office and godown.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive certified copies of documents seized by the respondents during the search dated 09.07.2018? (Question of law) 2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from demanding information from the petitioner that is not in their possession, and instead collect it from the seized papers? (Question of law) 3. Whether the respondents should be directed to conclude the adjudication process expeditiously after issuing a show cause notice, providing an opportunity to respond, and passing a speaking order? (Question of law) 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection from coercive action, including arrest, against its directors/staff under Section 69 read with Section 132 of the CGST Act, pending assessment? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought the quashing of the impugned order, supply of seized documents, and a direction to collect information from seized papers. They also prayed for a speedy adjudication and protection from coercive measures. Respondents' Arguments: The Revenue argued that for protection from arrest, the specific person should be before the court. However, they clarified that the petitioner's Managing Director's personal appearance was not required as per a summons dated 06.02.2020. They further stated that any future action would be in accordance with the law.