2018 (12) TMI 225 - HC - GST

Issue of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest and harass the petitioner pursuant to the First Information Report - offence under CGST Act - Held that - The petitioner to appear in the office of respondent no. 4 on 04.12.2018 and thereafter as and when required by the inquiry officer. The Investigating officer shall furnish a questionnaire to the petitioner - The petitioner would be obliged to answer the questionnaire and furnish the answers available with her. List on 13.02.2019.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of impugned proceedings/First Information Report under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
2. Legality of arrest and compliance with legal procedures
3. Compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Act
4. Authority of raiding officers in assessing GST
5. Requirement of petitioner to furnish information during inquiry

Analysis:
The petition before the High Court sought the quashing of the First Information Report dated 01.11.2018 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and a writ to prevent the arrest and harassment of the petitioner. The petitioner, along with her husband, was involved in two firms and was subject to a raid on 30.10.2018. The legality of the arrest was challenged, citing non-compliance with legal precedents set by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioner argued that arrests were being made without determining if any offence had been committed and highlighted the lack of expertise of raiding officers in assessing GST.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the Union of India stated a lack of instructions but mentioned the petitioner's obligation to provide information during the inquiry. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the inquiry officer on a specified date and subsequently as required. The Investigating officer was instructed to provide a questionnaire to the petitioner, ensuring it was also sent via email for clarity and acknowledgment. The petitioner was mandated to respond to the questionnaire and participate in the investigation, with a specific time frame set for appearance considering her gender.

The Court ordered the filing of counter affidavits and prohibited the petitioner's custody until the next hearing date, emphasizing her cooperation in the investigation. Additionally, a specific time frame for appearance was set, taking into account the petitioner's gender. The case was listed for further proceedings on a specified date, maintaining the petitioner's involvement in the inquiry process.