^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

SURESH KUMAR P.P., ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
(Kerala High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

K.VINOD CHANDRAN
T.R.RAVI

Pet. Counsel

Mathai M Paikaday

Sandeep Gopalakrishnan

Jinnu Sara George

Res. Counsel

N. Warrier

Mohammed Rafiq

Petitioner / Applicant	SURESH KUMAR P.P., ABOOBACKER SIDHIQUE
Respondent	THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Court	Kerala High Court
State	Kerala
Date	Aug 14, 2020
Order No.	W.A.No.943 OF 2020
Citation	2020(8) TAXREPLY 3212
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 67

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
The petitioners, the Managing Director and Director of a Company registered under the Companies Act,engaged in providing Cable Services as a Multi Service Operator (MSO) under the Telephone Regulatory of India (TRAI) Regulations, are in appeal. The appellants allege that illegal proceedings were taken against them, purportedly under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ['CGST Act' for brevity], and their residences and offices were raided, both of them kept under illegal custody and an amount of Rupees One Crore extorted from them. On the intervention of their Advocate at mid-night, they were released, allege the appellants. The appellants, in the writ petition prayed for (i) setting aside Exhibit P2 notice, requiring them to provide information issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO), (ii) invalidation of search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act evidenced by Exhibit P4, (iii) refund of Rupees One Crore collected by the 4th an....