Director General of GST intelligence VS Ravi Agarwal & Anr. 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

In a series of contempt cases filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) through the Senior Intelligence Officer, a significant legal proceeding took place. These cases were addressed collectively in a batch of writ petitions.

The matter was brought before the court to resolve issues related to the enforcement and compliance with GST regulations. The Senior Intelligence Officer, representing the DGGI, sought legal intervention to address non-compliance and alleged contempt by various entities.

On February 21, 2019, the court issued a common order that disposed of the batch of writ petitions. This order included specific directions and observations aimed at ensuring adherence to GST laws and facilitating the proper functioning of the GST regime.

The court’s directive aimed to provide clarity and enforce compliance, reflecting the importance of maintaining the integrity of the GST system. The outcome of this order was expected to have a significant impact on the enforcement of GST regulations and the handling of similar cases in the future.

The proceedings underscored the role of the judiciary in upholding tax laws and addressing violations, thereby reinforcing the legal framework governing GST in India.

This summary encapsulates the essence of the contempt cases and the court’s order from February 21, 2019.

These contempt cases have been initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, represented by the Senior Intelligence Officer.

On February 21, 2019, a common order was issued addressing a series of writ petitions. The order provided the following direction and observation:

In accordance with the clear statutory provisions under Section 69, read with Section 70, of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and considering the position stated in paragraph 25 of the counter-affidavit, the writ petitions were resolved with specific instructions to the petitioners. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer who had issued them summons, as and when required. Importantly, the order assured that the petitioners would not be arrested on their initial appearance before the officer. Additionally, it emphasized that the Senior Intelligence Officer must conduct himself with fairness, ensuring that his actions reflect impartiality and justice.

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, represented by the Senior Intelligence Officer, has filed contempt cases against various individuals. These cases stem from a common order issued on February 21, 2019, where a batch of writ petitions was resolved. The court had directed that, according to the statutory provisions under section 69 and section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petitioners must appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer when summoned. It was also specified that the petitioners should not be arrested on their first appearance, and the Senior Intelligence Officer was expected to act fairly.

Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, the counsel for the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, argued that the petitioners have blatantly disregarded the court’s directions by failing to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer. They have also neglected to submit necessary documents and provide other evidence, prompting the current contempt cases against the individual petitioners

In these contempt cases, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), represented by Senior Intelligence Officer Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, has filed a petition against several writ petitioners. These cases follow a common order issued on February 21, 2019, in which a batch of writ petitions was resolved with specific instructions. The court directed the petitioners to comply with the statutory provisions under Section 69 and Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They were instructed to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer when summoned, with the assurance that they would not be arrested on their first appearance. Additionally, the court emphasized that the Senior Intelligence Officer must act fairly and demonstrate fairness in action.

However, the petitioner (DGGI) claims that the writ petitioners have flagrantly violated these directions by failing to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer and not submitting the necessary documents or other evidence. Consequently, the DGGI has initiated contempt proceedings against the individual writ petitioners.

Mr. Kumar further elaborates that the Directorate’s reluctance to proceed against the individuals stems from the court’s observation that the petitioners should not be arrested on their first appearance before the Senior Intelligence Officer. This observation has apparently caused hesitancy in taking action against the individuals, thereby leading to the current contempt cases.

The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, represented by the Senior Intelligence Officer, has filed multiple contempt cases. These cases stem from an order dated February 21, 2019, which disposed of a series of writ petitions. The order directed the petitioners to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer who issued the summons, ensuring they would not be arrested on their first appearance. It also emphasized that the Officer must act fairly.

Despite this order, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, counsel for the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, argues that the petitioners have flagrantly violated the court’s directions by failing to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer and not submitting the necessary documents and evidence. This non-compliance has led to the filing of the current contempt cases against the individual writ petitioners.

Furthermore, Mr. Kumar points out that the Directorate’s reluctance to proceed against the individuals is due to the writ Court’s observation that they should not be arrested on their first appearance before the Senior Intelligence Officer. Upon examining the summons under sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it is clear that the power to arrest an assessee lies with the Commissioner, who must authorize such an action if there are reasonable grounds. Hence, the Senior Intelligence Officer, who issued the summons, lacks the authority to arrest the assessee without the Commissioner’s explicit order.

These contempt cases have been filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence through the Senior Intelligence Officer. On February 21, 2019, a batch of writ petitions was resolved with a directive stating that, according to sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, petitioners must appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer upon summons without fear of arrest on their first appearance. It was also emphasized that the Senior Intelligence Officer must act fairly in these proceedings.

Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, representing the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, argued that the petitioners have violated the court’s directions by failing to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer and not submitting the necessary documents and evidence. This non-compliance led to the present contempt cases against the individual petitioners.

Further elaboration by Mr. Kumar highlighted concerns that the Directorate is hesitant to take action against these individuals due to the court’s observation that they cannot be arrested on their first appearance before the Senior Intelligence Officer. Upon examining the summons issued to the petitioners and reading sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it becomes clear that only the Commissioner, upon reasonable belief, can authorize the arrest of an assessee. Thus, the Senior Intelligence Officer who issued the summons cannot arrest the assessee without the Commissioner’s authorization.

The writ court concluded that the Senior Intelligence Officer is not authorized to arrest an individual on their first appearance as per sections 69 and 70 of the 2017 Act. However, the court’s opinion does not imply that an individual who repeatedly avoids summons can indefinitely evade coercive actions, including arrest.

A series of contempt cases have been filed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, represented by the Senior Intelligence Officer. These cases arose following a common order dated February 21, 2019, which addressed a batch of writ petitions. The order directed the petitioners to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer when summoned, with the stipulation that they would not be arrested on their first appearance. The order emphasized the need for fairness in the actions of the Senior Intelligence Officer.

Despite this clear directive, the petitioners did not comply. According to Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, counsel for the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, the petitioners failed to appear and did not submit necessary documents or evidence, leading to the filing of the current contempt cases.

The counsel for the Directorate further elaborated that the Directorate was hesitant to take action against the petitioners because of the court’s observation that they should not be arrested on their first appearance. However, the summons issued to the petitioners must be examined in the context of sections 69 and 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Section 69 authorizes the Commissioner, upon having reasons to believe, to permit any Central Tax officer to arrest an assessee. Therefore, the Senior Intelligence Officer, who issued the summons, cannot arrest the assessee without the Commissioner’s authorization.

The writ Court’s opinion, based on a reading of sections 69 and 70, indicated that the Senior Intelligence Officer could not arrest an individual on their first appearance. However, this does not imply that an individual can continuously evade appearance without facing coercive actions, including arrest. The Directorate appears to have misinterpreted the court’s observations, as avoiding legal mandates without just cause does not entitle one to legal protection. Nonetheless, a finding on the issue of intentional avoidance is necessary.

 Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law:

–