Allahabad HC refuses to entertain Writ Petition who consistently Evaded Summons of GST Intelligence [Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition of an applicant who consistently evaded summons of GST Intelligence as the court believed that consistent absence was a sign of disinterest to cooperate with the revenue department.

The Writ petitioner, Ankit Bhutani was running a hotel and a Desi wine shop. He was issued summons under section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Superintendent, office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Meerut, to appear in person before him on 10th May 2018 to give evidence on such matters concerning the inquiry as he may be asked and produce documents and record mentioned in the schedule for examination. In pursuance to the summons, the writ petitioner had not attended the office of the Chief Commissioner. Rather, it was alleged that his wife went to the office and requested for granting a month’s time as the petitioner was reported to be out of the station. To date, he has not appeared before the concerned Senior GST Intelligence Officer in response to any of the summonses issued from time to time.

The applicant issued a writ of mandamus to finalize the inquiry proceeding, initiated under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 and not to take any coercive action against the petitioner before holding him guilty in inquiry proceeding, particularly when he has deposited Rs.2 crore on 31.10.2019, before even quantifying his tax liability.

Justice Biswanath Somadder and Justice Dr Y. K. Srivastava, “In so far as this matter is concerned, the series of summonses/notices which have been issued, clearly reveal that the writ petitioner is not interested in cooperating with the enquiry. Apart from a letter dated 24th January 2020, written by the writ petitioner, addressed to the concerned Senior Intelligence Officer, after almost four months from the date of issuance of the first summons dated 26th September 2019, there is nothing on record to show as to how the writ petitioner has specifically responded to the summonses/notices dated 26th September 2019, 27th September 2019, 1st October 2019, 7th October 2019, 15th October 2019 and 19th November 2019. …….As observed earlier, the facts of the instant case do not qualify for use of discretion by the writ Court in order to grant the writ petitioner such reliefs as prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly.”