FSM Education (P.) Ltd VS Union of India

In this legal case, Mr. Jitendra Mishra, acting as the learned counsel, waived the service of a formal notice. With the agreement of all parties involved, the petition was immediately taken up for a final hearing.

The petitioner filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the petition, they requested the issuance of a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ that the court may deem fit. The petition specifically sought to quash and set aside the summons issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes. Additionally, the petitioner requested that the court direct the respondents to conduct an inquiry regarding the matter at hand.

In this case, Mr. Jitendra Mishra, the learned Counsel, waived service, and with the consent of the parties, the petition was taken up for final hearing.

The Petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the summons issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes. The Petitioner also sought directions to the Respondents to conduct an enquiry without initiating summons or interrogation unless it was found extremely necessary and only by due adherence to the law.

The Petitioner is a School of Music engaged in teaching music to school children and enthusiasts at its center or schools. The Petitioner is registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. On 2 December 2021, the Petitioner received a communication from the Office of the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, requesting certain documents within four days of receiving the notice.

The Petitioner claimed that it had submitted various documents over time. However, on 15 December 2021, Respondent No.3 issued a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, requiring the Petitioner to appear on 16 December 2021. The summons lacked details of the inquiry. In response, the Petitioner sent Mr. Piyush Patel, their Accounts Manager, who was subjected to intense questioning for about five hours, which allegedly violated guidelines issued by Respondent No.1.

Subsequently, on 23 December 2021, the Respondents issued another summons to Mrs. Tanuja Gomes, one of the Petitioner’s Directors, requesting documents and oral evidence.

In this case, the petitioner, a School of Music, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to quash summons issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, a director of the petitioner. The petitioner requested that the respondents conduct an inquiry without resorting to summons and interrogation unless absolutely necessary and in strict adherence to the law.

The petitioner, which is registered under the Central Goods and Services Act (CGST) of 2017, had received a notice from the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, requesting certain documents. Despite submitting various documents, the petitioner received a summons on December 15, 2021, requiring the presence of a representative before the authorities the following day. The petitioner sent their Accounts Manager, Mr. Piyush Patel, who was interrogated for five hours, which the petitioner claims violated guidelines issued by the authorities.

Subsequently, another summons was issued on December 23, 2021, to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, requiring her to appear before the authorities on December 29, 2021. The petitioner argued that, according to the FAQs issued by the GST Department, summons should be a last resort, and information should be obtained through ordinary letters if possible. The petitioner contended that all requested documents had been provided, and the summons to Ms. Gomes, who is not familiar with GST issues due to her background as a musician, was unnecessary and coercive.

The petitioner’s counsel suggested that a consultant could appear before the authorities to provide any additional information required. If the respondents were unsatisfied with the consultant’s response, then, and only then, should Ms. Gomes appear in response to the summons.

Counsel for the respondents disputed the petitioner’s claim that all requested documents had been submitted, citing their affidavit-in-reply.

In this legal case, the petitioner, a music school, seeks a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to quash summons issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, a director of the petitioner company, by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) authorities. The petitioner argues that the summons, which required Ms. Gomes to appear before the authorities, were issued without adequate justification and that all requested documents had already been provided. The petitioner contends that such summons should only be used as a last resort, citing guidelines from the GST Department’s FAQs.

The case details how Mr. Piyush Patel, an Accounts Manager for the petitioner, had already appeared in response to an earlier summons and was interrogated for five hours. Despite this, further summons were issued to Ms. Gomes, which the petitioner argues is unnecessary and coercive, given that Ms. Gomes is not directly involved with GST matters. The petitioner suggests that a consultant could provide any additional required information, with Ms. Gomes only appearing if absolutely necessary.

The respondents, represented by Mr. Jitendra Mishra, counter that not all requested documents were provided and that the summons were issued based on a statement by Mr. Patel, indicating that Ms. Gomes was involved in decisions related to tax payments and exemptions.

The court notes that summons should indeed be a last resort and that there is no evidence of non-cooperation by the petitioner. Given the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate by providing further documents through a consultant, the court issues an order accordingly.

In this case, Mr. Jitendra Mishra, learned Counsel, waives service and agrees to proceed with the final hearing of the petition. The Petitioner, a School of Music involved in teaching music, filed the petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to quash summons issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, a Director of the Petitioner, by the Office of the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West. The Petitioner contends that the summons were unnecessary and sought directions for the Respondents to conduct inquiries only when extremely necessary and with proper adherence to the law.

The Petitioner had received a notice on December 2, 2021, requesting documents, which were subsequently submitted. However, despite this, summons were issued on December 15, 2021, requiring the Petitioner to appear before the authorities, without providing details of the inquiry. The Petitioner sent their Accounts Manager, who was interrogated for five hours, contrary to established guidelines. Further summons were issued on December 23, 2021, to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, despite her lack of personal knowledge regarding GST exemptions.

The Petitioner argued that all necessary documents had been provided and that further summons were unwarranted, citing the GST Department’s guidelines which state that summons should be a last resort. The Petitioner offered to have a Consultant present further details and documents to the Respondents, with Ms. Gomes appearing only if absolutely necessary. The Respondents disputed that all documents had been submitted, referring to an affidavit-in-reply.

The Court noted that summons should indeed be a last resort, with no allegations of non-cooperation against the Petitioner. It also noted conflicting statements regarding the responsibility for GST decisions within the Petitioner’s organization. The Court, acknowledging the Petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, directed the Respondents to provide a list of further required documents and queries within a week. The Petitioner’s Consultants, M/s MGB & Co., were instructed to submit the necessary documents on the Petitioner’s behalf.

In this legal case, the Petitioner, a School of Music involved in teaching music and registered under the Central Goods and Services Act (CGST) 2017, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petition sought to quash summons issued to one of its directors, Ms. Tanuja Gomes, and requested that the authorities conduct their investigation without resorting to summons and interrogation unless absolutely necessary and in strict adherence to the law.

The Petitioner received a communication from the CGST office requesting the submission of certain documents, which the Petitioner claims to have provided. However, a summons was issued to the Petitioner on December 15, 2021, requiring the presence of a representative before the authorities. The Petitioner sent Mr. Piyush Patel, their Accounts Manager, who was allegedly interrogated for five hours in a manner inconsistent with the guidelines. Subsequently, another summons was issued on December 23, 2021, to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, directing her to produce documents and provide oral evidence.

The Petitioner’s Counsel argued that as per the GST Department’s guidelines, summons should be a last resort, and necessary information should be sought through ordinary letters. The Counsel emphasized that all required documents had already been furnished, and that Ms. Gomes, being a musician, was not familiar with GST-related issues. The Petitioner proposed that a Consultant would provide any further required details and only if the authorities were dissatisfied with this information should Ms. Gomes be required to appear.

The Respondents, however, contested that the Petitioner had not submitted all the requested documents, and based their summons on statements made by Mr. Piyush Patel, who had indicated that Ms. Gomes made decisions regarding tax payments and exemptions.

The Court, acknowledging the Petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, issued an order with the following directives:

In this legal case, the Court addressed a writ petition filed by a School of Music that sought to challenge a summons issued on December 23, 2021, to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, a Director of the Petitioner company. The summons was part of an investigation under the Central Goods and Services Act (CGST) 2017. The Petitioner requested that the summons be quashed, arguing that Ms. Gomes, who is primarily involved in music, was not well-versed in GST matters and that all relevant documents had already been submitted.

The Court had earlier issued specific directions to resolve the matter. The Petitioner had undertaken to provide any additional documents requested by the authorities through their Consultants, M/s MGB & Co. The Court also instructed that any future summons should be issued only if necessary, and with clear notice and purpose.

Given the Petitioner’s undertaking and the directions provided by the Court, the impugned summons issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes was effectively rendered moot. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with the Court making the Rule absolute, which means the Court’s decision is final and binding. The Court did not impose any costs on either party, and both parties were instructed to act on the authenticated copy of the order.

In summary, the Court’s decision nullified the contested summons based on the Petitioner’s cooperation and the Court’s guidance, thereby concluding the legal proceedings without further penalties or actions required from either party.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: