2022 (1) TMI 551 - HC - GST

Seeking set aside the summons issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes - seeking direction to the Respondents to conduct an enquiry without initiating summons and interrogation unless found extremely necessary and only by due adherence of the law - HELD THAT - A perusal of the reply to the question 34 of FAQs dated 15 December 2018, issued by GST Department would clearly indicate that issuance of summons is a last resort and are not issued in a casual manner. There are no allegations made by the Respondents alleging non-cooperation on the part of the Petitioner - A perusal of the averments in para 7.1 indicates the said summons was issued only in view of the statement made by Shri Piyush Patel which was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act 2017, that the decision regarding payment of taxes and claiming of exemption was taken by the director Ms. Tanuja Gomes. In the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the Petitioner and the affidavit filed by Mr. Piyush Patel, the averments made by the Respondents in para 7.1 of the reply are denied. The Respondents are directed to inform the Petitioner the list of further documents required to be produced by the Petitioner and other requisite queries to which, they seek clarifications from the Petitioner. Such list of documents along with queries shall be furnished to the Petitioner within one week from today - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of summons issued to a director.
2. Conducting an enquiry without initiating summons.
3. Compliance with the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.
4. Coercive issuance of summons.
5. Allegations of non-cooperation by the Petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner sought a writ to quash summons issued to a director and to conduct an enquiry without summons unless necessary. The Petitioner, a School of Music, received a summons under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, without inquiry details. The Petitioner argued that the summons were coercive and subjected their Accounts Manager to prolonged interrogation.

2. The Petitioner contended that summons should be a last resort, citing GST Department FAQs. They offered to cooperate through a Consultant and challenged the necessity of the director's presence due to her lack of familiarity with tax matters. Respondents disputed document submission by the Petitioner.

3. The Court noted that summons issuance should not be casual and observed no non-cooperation allegations. The summons to the director was based on the Accounts Manager's statement, which the Petitioner denied. The Court ordered the Respondents to specify required documents and queries, allowing the Consultant to provide details and cooperate.

4. The Court directed the Respondents to decide on the director's evidence recording after document submission. Any future summons must specify the purpose and provide seven days' notice. The director was to cooperate with the authorities. The Court concluded that the director's summons was unnecessary given the Petitioner's cooperation, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

5. The judgment emphasized cooperation between the Petitioner and the Respondents, ensuring compliance with document submission and information provision through a Consultant. The Court's directions aimed to streamline the enquiry process and avoid coercive measures, ultimately resolving the issues raised by the Petitioner effectively.