2022 (8) TMI 251 - HC - GST

Service of summons - thrust of the argument is that only when the contesting respondents are able to demonstrate that a particular person in the company is involved in infractions or suspected of committing infractions, can summons be issued to the concerned person - HELD THAT - It is Mr. Singh s (Revenue's) stand before us that in future, if summons are issued, regard will be had to the aforementioned circulars and guidelines framed in that behalf. - Mr. Singh further submits, that if summons are served on the Petitioner s employee for furnishing information or to seek his presence before the concerned officer and if a request is made that the employee summoned would be represented through an authorised agent, such request will be considered and in case such a request is declined, reasons for the same will be furnished. Having regard to the statement made by Mr. Singh, which is in line with the contents of the circulars and guidelines, the writ petition is disposed off based on the statement made by Mr. Singh. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of summons issued by respondent no.4.
2. Compliance with circulars and guidelines related to issuance of summons.
3. Requirement of Document Identification Number (DIN) in summons.
4. Necessity of top management presence in case of infractions.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition challenged the validity of the summons dated 28.04.2022 issued by respondent no.4, Superintendent, Anti-Evasion, CGST, Delhi East, as it lacked essential details like the Document Identification Number (DIN) and the specific individuals required to be present.

2. The petitioner argued that the summons disregarded circulars dated 23.12.2019, 26.02.2007, and 20.01.2015, along with guidelines from 05.11.2019. The petitioner emphasized the importance of including DIN in summons to maintain transparency and authenticity, as per the guidelines.

3. It was contended that the circulars and guidelines allow exceptions in emergent situations but also require the respondents to rectify any deficiencies. The issuance of summons to top management should be a last resort, with a focus on obtaining information from lower-level officers first.

4. Respondent's counsel acknowledged the binding nature of the circulars and guidelines, assuring future compliance. It was stated that if an employee is summoned for information, the request for representation through an authorized agent would be considered, with reasons provided if declined.

5. In light of the respondent's commitment to adhere to the circulars and guidelines, the court disposed of the writ petition. The pending applications were closed accordingly, based on the statement made by the respondent's counsel, aligning with the contents of the circulars and guidelines.