2022 (9) TMI 1260 - HC - GST

Seeking stay on operation of summons - seeking restraint on respondent no. 2 from issuing any further summon - seeking permission to petitioners to join the investigation through video conferencing - HELD THAT - A perusal of the summons issued to the petitioners shows that the petitioners were required to be present before the concerned officer on 29.08.2022 - Since that date has passed, in case the respondents/revenue wishes to issue fresh summons to the petitioners and/or its directors or officers, they will follow the guidelines provided in instruction no.3 of 2020-2023 (GST-Investigations), dated 17.08.2022. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Application for directions to restrain the respondent from proceeding with summons, stay operation of summons, grant interim protection, and permit joining investigation via video conferencing.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed an application seeking various reliefs, including directing the respondent not to proceed with the summons issued on a specific date, staying the operation of the summons, restraining the respondent from issuing further summons, granting interim protection against coercive action, and permitting joining the investigation through video conferencing. The summons required the petitioners to be present before the concerned officer on a specific date, which has already passed. The court directed that if fresh summons are issued, the guidelines provided in instruction no.3 of 2020-2023 (GST-Investigations) dated 17.08.2022 should be followed. Additionally, if statements are recorded, the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a specific case will be adhered to.

The petitioner's counsel assured the court that the petitioners or their directors/officers would cooperate and join the investigation when summoned. The court emphasized the importance of providing the broad contours of the inquiry in the summons to facilitate the process and avoid wasting time and energy. It was noted that questions could be asked to confront the summoned person with available information and to produce necessary documents for the investigation.

The court found that the assurances given by the petitioner's counsel were sufficient to address the reliefs sought in certain prayer clauses of the application. However, as there was no immediate apprehension regarding coercive action, the court did not rule on that specific relief. The application was disposed of based on the terms discussed in the judgment. The court directed the registry to scan and upload the relevant instructions for record-keeping purposes, and the parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.