G.Srinivasa Raju Vs Union Of India

case tittle	G.Srinivasa Raju vs union of india
court	telangana high court
honourable judge	justice v.Ramasubramanian Justice P. Keshava Rao
citation	2019 (04) GSTPanacea 118 HC Telangana WP No.4769 of 2019:
judgment date	18-April-2019

In these writ petitions, the Directors (past and present) of several Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of one company, and the Partner of a Partnership Firm are challenging the summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Additionally, they contest the invocation of penal provisions under Section 69 of the same Act.

The matter involves multiple petitioners who are contesting the legal grounds of these summons and the accompanying penal measures. Representing the petitioners are Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, both learned Senior Counsel. The Union of India is represented by Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General.

The crux of the petitions appears to be the challenge to the legal validity and procedural correctness of the summons and the subsequent penal actions under the CGST Act, which are aimed at addressing alleged evasion of taxes. The outcome of these writ petitions will have implications for the enforcement of tax laws and the interpretation of the powers vested in the authorities under the CGST Act.

The summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the invocation of penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act, have been challenged by the Directors (past and/or present) of several Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company, and the Partner of a Partnership Firm through the aforementioned writ petitions, heard by Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, with the facts of each case varying slightly, which will be detailed separately

The Directors (Past and/or present) of a few Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company, and the Partner of a Partnership Firm have filed writ petitions challenging the summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the invocation of the penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act. Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, represented the petitioners, while Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General, represented the Union of India. The facts of each case differ marginally, so they are addressed separately. One of the petitioners is the Managing Director of Infinity Metals Products India Limited, which is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. The Company is a listed entity and has been summoned under the GST Act provisions, leading to the invocation of penal actions. The writ petitions seek to challenge these actions based on varying factual circumstances related to each petitioner, aiming to address the legal and procedural concerns raised by the enforcement of these GST provisions.

The summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the invocation of the penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act, have led to the filing of writ petitions by the Directors (Past and/or present) of several Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company, and a Partner of a Partnership Firm. The case involves the Managing Director of Infinity Metals Products India Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products. The GST officials conducted a search at the company’s premises on 27.02.2019, followed by a summon issued to the petitioner on the same day, calling him to appear on 28.02.2019 to give evidence concerning the enquiry. The petitioner, due to urgent travel on 27.02.2019, requested additional time to appear. However, a second summon was issued on 01.03.2019, directing him to appear on 05.03.2019, which he did not comply with, instead requesting two weeks’ time through a letter. Consequently, a third summon dated 05.03.2019 was issued, calling him to appear on 07.03.2019 with a warning of prosecution if he failed to comply. The petitioner challenged this third summon (dated 05.03.2019) by filing WP No.4764 of 2019

The summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the invocation of penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act have been challenged by the Directors (past and present) of a few Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company, and a Partner of a Partnership Firm through the above writ petitions; Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for the petitioners, while Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General, appeared on behalf of the Union of India; given the marginal differences in the facts of each case, the facts of each case will be presented separately; the petitioner in one writ petition is the Managing Director of Infinity Metals Products India Limited, which manufactures iron and steel products and is a listed company; a search was conducted in the company’s premises by GST Commissionerate officials on 27.02.2019, and a summon dated 27.02.2019 was issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act, calling for his appearance on 28.02.2019 to give evidence truthfully concerning the enquiry; the petitioner, who was traveling on urgent work on 27.02.2019, requested additional time to appear and cooperate with the investigation; however, a second summon dated 01.03.2019 was issued, directing the petitioner to appear on 05.03.2019; the petitioner did not appear on 05.03.2019 but sent a letter requesting two weeks’ time; consequently, a third summon dated 05.03.2019 was issued, requiring the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 07.03.2019, with a threat of prosecution if he failed to do so; challenging this third summon dated 05.03.2019, WP No. 4764 of 2019 was filed; in another writ petition, the petitioner is the Managing Director of Sujana Universal Industries Limited, which is engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products; a search was conducted in this company’s premises on 27.02.2019, and a summon under Section 70 of the Act was issued on 27.02.2019, calling upon the petitioner to appear at 5.00 p.m. on the same day; the petitioner claims to have appeared in the office of the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) at the appointed time.

The summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate under Section 70 of the CGST Act and the invocation of penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act have been challenged by Directors of several Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company, and a Partner of a Partnership Firm through writ petitions. The petitioners are represented by Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, while Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General, represents the Union of India. The cases, though slightly different, involve common legal issues. The first petitioner is the Managing Director of Infinity Metals Products India Limited, a company manufacturing iron and steel products. A search was conducted at the company premises on 27.02.2019, followed by a summons for the petitioner to appear on 28.02.2019. The petitioner, citing urgent travel, requested more time. Another summons on 01.03.2019 required his appearance on 05.03.2019, but he sought a two-week extension instead. Consequently, a third summons on 05.03.2019 threatened prosecution if the petitioner did not appear on 07.03.2019, leading to the filing of WP No.4764 of 2019. The second petitioner is the Managing Director of Sujana Universal Industries Limited, another company in the iron and steel sector. A search and a summons on 27.02.2019 required his appearance the same day at 5.00 p.m. The petitioner attended the inquiry, which extended late into the night and resumed the following morning until 4.00 a.m. He failed to appear later on 28.02.2019 due to health issues and requested time until 04.03.2019. However, the petitioner did not appear on the specified date, leading to another writ petition against the summons.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: