No Exemption to Assessee From Personal Appearance Under GST: HC

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the direction of exemption from personal appearance pursuant to the summons issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2017’)

Contention of Petitioner

Though jurisdiction of the authority is not under challenge, nor the order is alleged to be issued in exercise of any malice, in fact, against any particular authority, the ground of challenge is that the petitioner is entitled to be represented through his authorized representative as provided under Section 116 of the Act of 2017.

The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of clarification under FAQs, the petitioner’s representation through authorized representative is required to be duly considered by the respondents. In this regard, he would submit that unless it is absolutely imperative, it is not necessary that in all cases, the petitioner should be insisted for personal appearance and he may be allowed to appear through a representative also replying to various queries. Reliance has been placed on order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (L) No. 30974/2021).

Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that GST authorities are acting in a high handed manner and in fact, the son of the petitioner was apprehended in connection with the process of search and seizure, therefore, the petitioner’s apprehension of he being harassed is not without any basis.

Contention of Department

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in this case, a summons has been issued under Section 70 of the Act of 2017 by Respondent No. 3 in the exercise of powers under the law. He would next submit that as the petitioner has been directed to appear personally, provisions of Section 116 of the Act of 2017 would not be applicable. Learned counsel would submit that the authorities are presumed to
exercise their power in accordance with the law and in the absence of any specific allegation against the authority, who has issued summons, the petitioner is not entitled to any such relief.

Order of High Court:

Before parting with the case, this Court, taking note of the directions issued by Their Lordships in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & Others (2021) 1 SCC 184, would observe that even in the matter of the issuance of summons under Section 70 of the Act of 2017 for personal appearance and recording of statement, the certain procedure has to be followed as stated therein. All such procedures as laid down therein will have to be followed by the respondents while recording the statement of the petitioner pursuant to the summons issued under Section 70 of the Act of 2017.

Para 19 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

“19. The Union of India is also to file an affidavit in which it will update this Court on the constitution and workings of the Central Oversight Body, giving full particulars thereof. In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of:

(i) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
(ii) National Investigation Agency (NIA)
(iii) Enforcement Directorate (ED)
(iv) Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)
(v) Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
(vi) Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
(vii) Any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.

As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station.”

The allegation with regard to high handed action against son of the petitioner could not be subject matter of this petition. We would not comment upon that.

In view of the above, subject to observations made hereinabove, we are not inclined to grant relief, as prayed for in this petition.