Ankit Bhutani VS Union of India

The writ petitioner is an individual who has received multiple summonses and notices from the Senior Intelligence Officer at the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Ghaziabad Regional Unit. These summonses were issued on various dates: 26th September 2019, 27th September 2019, 1st October 2019, 7th October 2019, and 15th October 2019.

In the writ petition, it is mentioned that a firm called Radhey Enterprises, from which the petitioner’s firm used to purchase raw materials, also faced similar actions and summonses. Radhey Enterprises subsequently filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.18802 of 2019 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in response to these actions.

The petition highlights the sequence of events leading to these legal actions and underscores the connection between the petitioner’s firm and Radhey Enterprises, both of which are under scrutiny by the tax authorities. The petition likely challenges the legitimacy or process of these summonses, seeking relief from the court.

The writ petitioner, an individual facing several summonses from the Senior Intelligence Officer at the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence in Ghaziabad, has approached the court seeking relief. The summonses were issued on multiple dates between September and October 2019. The petitioner also mentioned that Radhey Enterprises, a supplier from whom his firm purchased raw materials, faced similar actions. Radhey Enterprises had filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, resulting in a stay on a summons issued to them.

The petitioner claims that he was coerced into depositing ₹2 crores on October 31, 2019, before his tax liability was determined. Citing a previous judgment from May 2018 by the same court in a similar case, the petitioner requests the court to (i) direct the respondents to finalize the inquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017, without taking any coercive action against him until he is found guilty, especially since he has already deposited the ₹2 crores, and (ii) allow his appearance through his lawyer or representatives with all relevant documents and provide him with a reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing any final order or determining his tax liability.

The central issue for the court to decide is whether the petitioner can invoke the court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this situation.

The writ petitioner is an individual who has received multiple summonses and notices from the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), Ghaziabad Regional Unit. These summonses were issued on various dates, including September 26, 2019, September 27, 2019, October 1, 2019, October 7, 2019, and October 15, 2019. The petitioner’s firm had been purchasing raw materials from Radhey Enterprises, which also faced similar actions. Radhey Enterprises had filed a Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, leading to a stay on the summons dated June 26, 2019.

The petitioner claims in the writ petition that he was coerced into depositing Rs. 2 crores on October 31, 2019, even before his tax liability was determined. He has approached the Court, relying on a judgment from May 25, 2018, by a Coordinate Bench of the same Court in a similar case (Shri Viklap Jain vs. Union of India and others). The petitioner seeks reliefs that include directing the respondents to finalize the inquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and not to take any coercive action against him until his guilt is established. He also requests that his presence through a lawyer or representatives be accepted for the inquiry and that he be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any final order or tax liability is determined.

The Court is tasked with deciding whether the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by the petitioner in this case. A summons dated September 26, 2019, annexed to the petition, indicates that the inquiry pertains to the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without the receipt of goods, under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner has not yet appeared before the Senior Intelligence Officer in response to any of the summonses. Section 70 of the CGST Act empowers the proper officer to summon individuals for evidence or document production in inquiries, with such inquiries being deemed judicial proceedings under the Indian Penal Code.

Given that at least five summonses have been issued for the inquiry, the Court must consider whether to grant the petitioner the discretionary relief sought. The Court notes that such relief can only be granted if the petitioner’s bona fides are not in question. However, granting the reliefs requested would essentially protect the petitioner from arrest, despite the facts of the case suggesting otherwise.

The writ petitioner is an individual who has been repeatedly summoned by the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Ghaziabad. These summonses, issued on multiple dates in September and October 2019, are related to an inquiry into the alleged misuse of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without the actual receipt of goods, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

The petitioner claims that similar action was taken against Radhey Enterprises, a firm from which his business purchased raw materials. Radhey Enterprises had previously filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, resulting in a stay on a summons issued to them. The petitioner also states that he was coerced into depositing Rs. 2 crores on October 31, 2019, despite his tax liability not yet being quantified.

Relying on a previous judgment by the same court in the case of *Shri Viklap Jain vs. Union of India*, the petitioner has approached the court seeking relief. He requests that the court order the respondents to finalize the inquiry proceedings and refrain from taking any coercive action until he is found guilty in the inquiry. He also asks that his presence be allowed through his lawyer or representative during the proceedings, with the opportunity to present relevant documents before any final order is passed.

The court is asked to consider whether the petitioner, who has not yet appeared before the Senior Intelligence Officer despite multiple summonses, can invoke its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court notes that discretionary relief can only be granted if the petitioner’s bona fides are not in doubt. Given that the petitioner has not complied with the summonses, granting the reliefs sought could effectively grant him immunity from arrest. The court also highlights that the petitioner’s reliance on the earlier case of *Shri Viklap Jain* is misplaced, as the facts of the two cases differ significantly.

The writ petitioner is an individual who has received multiple summonses from the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence in Ghaziabad. These summonses were issued between September and October 2019 as part of an investigation under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without receipt of goods.

The petitioner, who has not responded to any of these summonses, claims that he was compelled to deposit ₹2 crores on October 31, 2019, before any formal determination of his tax liability. He is seeking relief from the Court, requesting that the inquiry be finalized without any coercive action against him until he is found guilty. Additionally, he requests that his presence in the inquiry be allowed through his lawyer or representatives.

The Court, however, questioned whether it should grant discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, given the petitioner’s non-compliance with the summonses. The Court referred to a previous case (Shri Viklap Jain vs. Union of India), where a similar request was made, but the petitioner in that case was directed to cooperate with the inquiry.

The Court highlighted that the judgments cited by the petitioner do not justify shielding him from the inquiry. The petitioner was reminded of the principle that judicial statements must be understood within the context of the specific facts of each case. The Court concluded that the petitioner must appear before the relevant authorities and cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

The writ petitioner, an individual, faced multiple summonses from the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Ghaziabad, for an enquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. These summonses, issued between September and October 2019, were related to the alleged improper availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without the receipt of goods. The petitioner, associated with Radhey Enterprises, was also linked to a similar case where Radhey Enterprises had obtained a stay from the Punjab and Haryana High Court against a summons.

The petitioner approached the court seeking reliefs including a directive to finalize the enquiry without coercive actions against him, especially since he had already deposited ₹2 crores before his tax liability was quantified. He also requested that his lawyer be allowed to represent him during the proceedings. The central issue was whether the court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked in this case.

However, the court noted that despite multiple summonses, the petitioner had not appeared before the Senior Intelligence Officer, raising doubts about his bona fides. The court referred to a prior case (Shri Viklap Jain vs. Union of India) where a writ petitioner, similarly summoned under the CGST Act, was directed to cooperate with the enquiry. The court emphasized that judicial pronouncements must be understood within the specific facts of each case and cannot be generalized as legislative enactments.

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Poolpandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, which dealt with the presence of lawyers during questioning under the Customs Act, highlighting that such procedural protections are not absolute.

In conclusion, the court held that the petitioner had failed to cooperate with the enquiry and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to present himself before the authorities and cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

The writ petitioner has been issued multiple summonses by the Senior Intelligence Officer of the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence in Ghaziabad, concerning an investigation under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The summonses, issued on several dates between September and October 2019, were related to the availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without the actual receipt of goods. The petitioner claims that his firm, which purchased raw materials from Radhey Enterprises, has been unduly pressured into depositing ₹2 crores on 31st October 2019, despite his tax liability not being quantified.

In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus order directing the respondent to finalize the inquiry and refrain from taking coercive action before determining his guilt. The petitioner also requested that his presence through legal representation be deemed sufficient during the inquiry.

The court, however, questioned whether the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked in this case, noting that the petitioner had not complied with the summonses issued. The court observed that the petitioner’s non-cooperation with the investigation disqualifies him from seeking such extraordinary relief. The court referred to a previous judgment where the petitioner was directed to cooperate with the inquiry, emphasizing that judicial decisions should not be treated as legislative enactments, and the facts of each case should guide the application of such decisions.

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Poolpandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise, which emphasized that the rights of individuals under investigation must be balanced against the need to prevent tax evasion and ensure cooperation with law enforcement. Given the petitioner’s lack of compliance and the nature of the inquiry, the court dismissed the writ petition, refusing to grant the reliefs sought.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: