Dhirendra Singh VS Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate

The writ applications in question involve similar issues, and therefore, they were addressed together in a single hearing and are being resolved through a common order. To streamline the proceedings, Special Civil Application No. 12019 of 2019 has been designated as the lead case.

The writ application, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks specific reliefs from the court. Article 226 empowers the High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs to any person or authority, including the government, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. The specific details of the reliefs sought by the writ applicant in this case are not provided in the excerpt, but they form the core of the legal matter under consideration.

In summary, the court has decided to address these writ applications collectively due to their shared legal issues and has chosen one of them as the primary case for reference. The proceedings are aimed at providing the relief sought by the applicant through the exercise of the High Court’s constitutional powers under Article 226.

In this legal proceeding, the writ applicant has sought judicial relief under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, challenging several summonses issued by the respondent under Section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017. The specific summonses in question were issued on various dates in May and June 2019. The applicant requested the court to stay the operation and implementation of these summonses, pending the final disposal of the petition. Additionally, the applicant sought an ex-parte ad interim relief, which would temporarily prevent any coercive actions by the respondents, such as enforcement or penalties, until the petition is fully resolved. The applicant also asked for any other reliefs that the court might find just and necessary based on the case’s circumstances.

The crux of the litigation is the challenge to these summonses, with the applicant arguing that they are unwarranted or unjust. On 17th July 2019, the court responded by issuing a notice to the respondents, instructing them to respond by 24th July 2019. After hearing the applicant’s counsel and reviewing the case details, the court determined that the applicant had presented a strong prima facie case, justifying interim protection. Consequently, the court ordered that no coercive action should be taken against the applicant until the next hearing. However, the applicant was also directed to appear before the relevant authority to present his case regarding the discharge of the tax liability in question.

In the context of the ongoing litigation, the writ applicant has sought specific reliefs through their petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary request (B) is for the court to stay the operation and implementation of several summonses issued by the respondent under Section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017. These summonses, dated between May and June 2019, were issued by the tax authorities, and the applicant is challenging their validity and enforcement. Additionally, in request (C), the applicant seeks an ex-parte ad interim relief, asking the court to temporarily stay the summonses and provide protection against any coercive actions by the respondents until the final resolution of the case. The applicant also requests (D) any other reliefs that the court may deem just and necessary based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The central issue being contested in this litigation is the validity of the summonses issued under the CGST Act. On 17th July 2019, the court issued an order recognizing that the applicant had made a strong prima facie case for interim relief. Consequently, the court ordered that no coercive actions be taken against the applicant until the next hearing, which was set for 24th July 2019. Meanwhile, the applicant was directed to appear before the relevant authority to clarify and defend their position concerning the tax liability in question.

During subsequent hearings, Mr. Prabhav Mehta and Mr. Nachiket Dave represented the writ applicants, while Mr. Parth Divyeshvar, the learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents. The respondents, through their counsel, highlighted specific observations from their affidavit-in-reply, particularly emphasizing the applicant’s failure to provide any documentary evidence or accept liability during statements made on 22nd and 23rd July 2019. Despite the court’s earlier directive for the applicant to present a defense regarding the tax liability, the applicant did not furnish the necessary details or refute the evidence presented by the department. This situation formed the basis of the respondents’ argument against the granting of further relief to the applicant.

In this case, the writ applicant sought relief from the court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. Specifically, the applicant requested a stay on the operation and implementation of multiple summonses issued by the respondent under Section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017. These summonses were dated between May and June 2019. The applicant also requested an ex-parte ad interim relief, which would provide immediate protection against any coercive actions by the respondents until the petition could be finally resolved. Additionally, the applicant sought any other reliefs that the court might deem appropriate based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The core issue in this litigation was the challenge to the summonses issued to the applicant under the CGST Act, 2017. On July 17, 2019, the court issued a notice to the respondents and scheduled a returnable date for July 24, 2019. After reviewing the materials and hearing the applicant’s counsel, the court found that a strong prima facie case had been established in favor of the applicant. As a result, the court ordered that no coercive actions should be taken against the applicant until the next hearing date. In the interim, the court directed the applicant to appear before the concerned authority to clarify his position regarding the discharge of the tax liability.

During subsequent hearings, it was revealed that the writ applicant had appeared before the department on several occasions but had failed to provide sufficient evidence or documentation to either accept or refute the tax liability presented by the department. The applicant’s responses were ambiguous and evasive, which hindered the ongoing investigation. The department emphasized the need to verify sales and Input Tax Credit (ITC) records, which the applicant had not yet provided. The applicant’s non-cooperation and failure to submit necessary documents were seen as an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

The respondents argued that the applicant, along with other key figures in the company, had knowingly violated provisions of the CGST Act by creating fake companies and engaging in fraudulent transactions without actual movement of goods. These actions constituted serious offenses under the CGST Act, warranting criminal prosecution and potential imprisonment. The respondents contended that the applicant had willfully disregarded the court’s earlier directions and failed to comply with the legal obligations, thereby justifying the ongoing investigation and potential coercive actions.

In the context of the ongoing legal proceedings, the writ applicant sought specific reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicant requested the court to stay the operation and implementation of several summonses issued by the respondent under Section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017, on various dates in May and June 2019. Additionally, the applicant sought an ex-parte ad interim relief, which would provide temporary protection against any coercive actions that might be taken by the respondents while the petition was pending final disposal. The applicant also requested any other reliefs that the court might deem necessary based on the circumstances of the case.

The core issue in the litigation was the challenge to the summonses issued under the CGST Act, with the applicant seeking relief from compliance with these summonses. On 17th July 2019, the court issued an interim order in favor of the applicant, preventing any coercive actions by the authorities until the next hearing date. The applicant was instructed to appear before the concerned authority to clarify his position regarding the discharge of tax liability.

The respondents, through their counsel Mr. Parth Divyeshvar, highlighted in their affidavit-in-reply that the applicant, despite appearing before the authorities on two occasions, failed to produce the necessary documents for the investigation. This non-compliance, they argued, was hampering the ongoing investigation into the applicant’s GST liability. The respondents further alleged that the applicant and other key individuals within his company had knowingly engaged in fraudulent activities, such as creating fake companies and availing ineligible input tax credits, which could lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment.

The court observed that the applicant’s primary motivation in filing these writ applications appeared to be an attempt to avoid arrest, as the applicant feared being detained if he complied with the summons. The court noted that there was no substantial legal basis to challenge the summonses issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and the applications had essentially become moot over time. However, the court’s final decision on the matter was still pending, and the writ applications were on the verge of being deemed infructuous, given the circumstances and developments in the case.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: