GST Summons Case cannot be transferred from One Department to Another [Read Order]

The Kerala High Court in the matter of KOTHAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SGST, has held that when a GST summon is issued to the appellant, he cannot choose the office of the GST department where he can appear and submit documents in response to summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. He is legally bound to appear before the officer before whom he was asked to appear.

The appellant writ petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, directing the appellant to furnish the details of accounts for various periods.

The appellant society is located at Kothamangalam in Ernakulam. The appellant gave Ext.P2 representation to the 1st respondent expressing its difficulty in appearing before him at Kanhangad and requesting permission to transfer the case to any other office at Ernakulam. Again, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act to the appellant, asking him to appear before him on 17/5/2023. To the said summons also, the appellant gave Ext.P4 reply expressing his inability to appear before him on 17/5/2023 and requesting to transfer the case to Ernakulam. Since there was no positive reply, the appellant approached this Court challenging Exts.P1 and P3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after hearing both sides. The appellant is before us challenging the said judgment.

The appellant was given sufficient time to appear before the 1st respondent, but he did not care to appear. The learned Single Judge gave three days’ time to the appellant to appear before the 1st respondent to produce all documents as mentioned in Exts.P1 and P3 summons. The said period expired on 29/9/2023. The appellant approached this court only in November, 2023. The appellant cannot choose the office of the GST department where he can appear and submit documents in response to summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. He is legally bound to appear before the officer before whom he was asked to appear. The failure of the appellant to appear before the 1st respondent appears to be deliberate.

We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

For Official Judgment Download PDF Given Below: