9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 298 - HC - GSTContempt of court - Right of Senior Intelligence Officer to arrest the assessee as against the directions of the Court - petitioners did not appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer and have failed to submit necessary documents and tender other evidences - HELD THAT - The writ Court formed an opinion on a conjoint reading of sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 that the Senior Intelligence Officer is not authorized to arrest an individual to whom he had issued summons on the first date of his appearance. It is certainly not the import of section 69 read with section 70 of 2017 Act that an individual who is avoiding appearance before the authority without any just excuse can claim that even if he appears after a dozen summons the authority cannot take coercive action against him, including his arrest. The Directorate has misread and misconstrued the observations in paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the order dated 21.02.2019. It is well-settled in law that any one intentionally avoiding the mandate in law is not entitled for any protection in law but, there should be a finding on the issue - contempt cases stand disposed off.
Issues: Contempt of court for non-appearance before Senior Intelligence Officer and failure to submit necessary documents. Interpretation of statutory provisions under section 69 and section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 regarding arrest authority. Misreading and misconstruing court directions by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence.
Contempt of Court for Non-Appearance and Failure to Submit Documents: The judgment pertains to contempt cases filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence against writ petitioners who failed to comply with court directions. The court had previously directed the petitioners to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer upon summons without fear of immediate arrest. However, the petitioners did not appear before the Officer, leading to the contempt cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners' reluctance to appear was due to a misinterpretation of the court's observation regarding arrest on the first day of appearance. The court emphasized that intentional avoidance of legal obligations does not warrant protection under the law, but a proper finding on the issue is necessary. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions on Arrest Authority: The judgment delves into the interpretation of sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 concerning the authority to arrest an assessee. The court highlighted that under section 69, only the Commissioner, upon having reasons to believe, can authorize an officer to arrest an assessee. Therefore, the Senior Intelligence Officer cannot arrest an individual without the Commissioner's authorization based on "reasons to believe." The court clarified that the Senior Intelligence Officer's inability to arrest on the first appearance does not grant individuals the right to evade compliance indefinitely. The judgment emphasized that avoiding appearance without valid reasons does not shield individuals from coercive actions under the law. Misreading and Misconstruing Court Directions: The court addressed the Directorate's misinterpretation of the court's directions in the previous order. It noted that the Directorate had misunderstood the observations made in the order dated 21.02.2019. The court reiterated that intentional non-compliance with legal mandates does not entitle individuals to legal protection unless a proper finding is made on the issue. The contempt cases were disposed of with the observation that the Directorate should proceed in the matter in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal obligations without misinterpretation. In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with court directions and legal obligations, clarifies the authority to arrest under the GST Act, and underscores that intentional avoidance of legal duties does not warrant protection under the law.
|
