2018 (12) TMI 1897 - HC - GST

Issuance of summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act - Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax, Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Considering the voluntary nature of pleadings where the petitioners are desirous of getting themselves assisted by the adjudicatory process, Let them represent their case before the concerned authority. The authority concerned shall complete the same in 8 weeks' time and if there is a need for any apprehension after once the adjudicatory process is completed, if they are not ready to fulfill their obligation, they may be given an opportunity of two more weeks for taking necessary steps. Petitioners shall appear on or before 11/01/2019 before the concerned Police Station. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioners seeking relief from coercive action due to apprehension of arrest under Central Excise Act and CGST Act summons.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed two Special Criminal Applications, seeking relief from coercive action pending adjudication of liabilities related to their firms. The petitions requested the court to issue appropriate writs, orders, or directions to prevent any coercive action until the liability of the firms is determined. The petitioners were apprehensive of arrest following summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, which applies to service tax under Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioners expressed their willingness to provide all necessary evidence for the adjudication of their firm's liabilities but requested not to be apprehended until the authority concerned determines their liabilities. The respondent-State's counsel argued that since the summons were issued, there should be no apprehension, and the petitioners should present themselves to respond to the summons.

In response to the arguments, the court considered the voluntary nature of the petitioners' willingness to assist in the adjudicatory process and directed them to represent their case before the concerned authority. The court ordered the authority to complete the adjudication within 8 weeks and allowed an additional 2 weeks if needed. The petitioners were instructed to appear before the concerned Police Station by a specified date. The court disposed of the applications accordingly, permitting direct service.

In conclusion, the court's judgment balanced the petitioners' apprehension of arrest with the need to follow the legal process. The court allowed the petitioners to participate in the adjudication process voluntarily and set a timeline for the completion of the process, ensuring that the petitioners' rights were protected while upholding the legal procedures under the relevant Acts.