2019 (1) TMI 1122 - HC - Service Tax

Repeated summons - grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner is repeatedly called upon to appear before the respondent for one reason or other without there being a necessity - Held that - The prayer sought for as such, cannot be entertained, since the power to issue summons by the respondent cannot be curtailed when the matter is pending at the stage of investigation - However, as it is expressed by the petitioner that she made several appearance before the respondent, this Court is of the view that the respondent has to complete the examination of the petitioner by next hearing date - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeks Mandamus to prevent respondent from issuing further summons.
2. Allegation of non-payment of service tax by petitioner company.
3. Grievance of petitioner regarding repeated summons.
4. Respondent's contention of petitioner's non-cooperation with investigation.
5. Court's decision on the prayer sought by petitioner.
6. Direction for completion of examination of petitioner by next hearing date.
7. Requirement for petitioner's cooperation during examination.
8. Permission for authorized representative to accompany petitioner during examination.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Company represented by its General Manager (Finance), sought Mandamus to restrain the respondent from issuing additional summons related to an alleged non-payment of service tax. The respondent had initiated an investigation by summoning the petitioner to provide documents. The petitioner's grievance was the repeated summons without valid necessity. The respondent argued that the petitioner's lack of cooperation in providing statements left them with no choice but to issue repeated summons. The Court noted that while the prayer to prevent further summons couldn't be entertained, it directed the respondent to complete the examination of the petitioner by the next hearing date. The respondent was instructed to ensure the examination is conducted without any further allegations of improper treatment. The petitioner was permitted to have an authorized representative present during the examination, with specific seating instructions provided by the Court.

This judgment highlights the balance between the petitioner's concerns regarding repeated summons and the respondent's need to conduct a thorough investigation. The Court emphasized the importance of cooperation from both parties, with a specific directive for the respondent to conclude the examination by a specified date. The permission for an authorized representative to accompany the petitioner during the examination ensures fair treatment and oversight during the process. The decision reflects the Court's aim to address the grievances of the petitioner while ensuring the investigation proceeds effectively and fairly.