2010 (10) TMI 900 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition - summons issued by the Excise authorities - held that - An Excise officer issuing summons to appear with records cannot be said to be deprivation of liberty of an individual. This Court do not find any acceptable legal ground raised in the writ petition. It can be presumed that it was for egoistic reasons and not on any concrete legal foundation. If the petitioner is unfamiliar to explain the accounts maintained by them, it is always open to them to take along a person who is well versed with their accounts to explain to the officer his queries. But on that ground they cannot seek to dispense with their personal appearances. If the authority wants to make further clarification, they can always question the petitioners, who were responsible in running the business. This Court do not find any legal injuries were suffered by the petitioners by the receipt of the summons so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to summons issued by Excise authorities.

Analysis:
The petitioners, partners in a business, challenged summons issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioners argued that personal appearance was unnecessary as per a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and they could depute a representative familiar with their accounts. However, the court rejected these contentions, stating that no statutory proceedings had been initiated, and the petitioners were reluctant to appear before the officer without valid reasons. The court emphasized that issuing summons did not amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court highlighted that an Excise officer issuing summons for appearance with records did not violate an individual's liberty. It was noted that the petitioners could bring someone well-versed in their accounts to clarify queries but could not avoid personal appearances. The court found no legal grounds for the petitioners' claims of harassment or injury, stating that they could be questioned further if needed. The court emphasized that the receipt of summons did not justify invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Regarding the legality of the summons issued by Excise authorities, the court referenced a Supreme Court judgment in Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), emphasizing the necessity of measures to prevent tax evasion. The court highlighted that search and seizure powers were essential tools in maintaining social security and preventing tax evasion. Citing previous judgments, the court reiterated that empowering authorities to conduct searches and seizures in connection with taxation laws was crucial to combat tax evasion. The court dismissed the writ petitions as misconceived, emphasizing that challenging the measure of search and seizure in tax-related matters was unwarranted.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the summons issued by the Excise authorities, emphasizing the importance of upholding statutory procedures and the necessity of measures to prevent tax evasion. The court's decision underscored the legal framework supporting the issuance of summons by Excise authorities and the broader objective of combating tax evasion through appropriate legal provisions.