2022 (4) TMI 1024 - HC - GST

Seeking direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued to the petitioner - Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Taking note of the directions issued by Their Lordships in the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI VERSUS BALJIT SINGH OTHERS 2020 (12) TMI 1222 - SUPREME COURT , would observe that even in the matter of issuance of summons under Section 70 of the Act of 2017 for personal appearance and recording of statement, certain procedure has to be followed as stated therein. All such procedure as laid down therein will have to be followed by the respondents while recording the statement of the petitioner pursuant to summons issued under Section 70 of the Act of 2017. The allegation with regard to high handed action against son of the petitioner could not be subject matter of this petition - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption from personal appearance under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Entitlement to be represented through an authorized representative under Section 116 of the Act of 2017.
3. Allegations of high-handed actions by GST authorities.
4. Consideration of requests for changing the date of personal appearance or granting relief in cases of personal disability.
5. Compliance with procedures for recording statements under Section 70 of the Act of 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing entitlement to representation through an authorized representative as per Section 116. The petitioner relied on a Bombay High Court judgment for support, emphasizing the need for flexibility in appearance requirements based on FAQs clarification.

2. The respondents contended that the summons were issued under Section 70, necessitating personal appearance and overriding the provisions of Section 116. They argued against the applicability of FAQs for representation through a legal representative, asserting that administrative instructions cannot contravene statutory provisions.

3. The petitioner alleged high-handed actions by GST authorities, highlighting the apprehension of harassment due to the petitioner's son being involved in a search and seizure process. However, the court refrained from commenting on this matter, stating it was not within the scope of the petition.

4. The petitioner's plea for consideration of requests to change the appearance date or grant relief in cases of personal disability was deemed a matter for the concerned authority's discretion, not the court's intervention. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to address such issues directly to the authority.

5. Regarding compliance with procedures for recording statements under Section 70, the court referred to directions from the Supreme Court on following specified procedures. The court underscored the importance of adherence to prescribed procedures, emphasizing the need for proper protocol in summoning individuals for personal appearances and statement recordings.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition without granting the relief sought by the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to established procedures and the limited scope for court intervention in certain matters raised by the petitioner.