2017 (7) TMI 717 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of Summon order of petitioner - Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether a Writ Court can injunct or quash a summon? - Held that - similar issue decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, vs. MM Exports, 2007 (3) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , wherein, it was held that High Court should not interfere at the stage when the department issues summons except in exceptional cases and it is always open to the personal summon to raise all contentions appearing before the department in person or through authorised representative. Therefore, by applying the challenge to the summon has to necessarily fail. The language of the sub-section is very clear that if the Officer directs the petitioner to appear in person, then he is bound to appear in person, or if he is given an option to appear through authorised agent, he can appear through authorised agent. That alone would be a proper interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 108. Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a summons issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The petitioner argued that the summons lacked particulars and did not specify the reason for his appearance, alleging harassment and victimization. The petitioner highlighted a previous summons directing him to produce various documents, which he complied with. The respondent defended the summons, stating it was necessary for an ongoing investigation into alleged customs duty evasion. The petitioner contended that the summon was not specific about the purpose, while the respondent assured to issue a fresh summon with clarity.

The legal issue of challenging a summons was discussed, citing precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court referred to a case involving Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, vs. MM Exports, where it was held that interference by the High Court in summons issuance should be minimal, allowing the summoned party to raise contentions before the department. Another Supreme Court case, Union of India Vss Rajnish Kumar, Tuli, emphasized the limitations of challenging summons through a Writ Petition. The Court concluded that challenging a summon through a Writ Petition is not maintainable, following the legal principles established in the mentioned cases.

The petitioner's claim of being manhandled during a previous appearance was dismissed due to lack of evidence or complaint. The interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 108 of the Customs Act was clarified, emphasizing the requirement for the summoned party to appear either in person or through an authorized agent as directed by the officer. Ultimately, the Court found the Writ Petition not maintainable and dismissed it, allowing the respondents to issue a fresh summon with proper reasons for the petitioner's appearance, in adherence to Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

In conclusion, the Court held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable, dismissed it, and allowed the respondents to issue a fresh summon with clear reasons for the petitioner's appearance. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed accordingly.