In the 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 (CGST Act), and the invocation of penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act, several individuals have come forward. These individuals include past and present Directors of a few Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company, and a Partner of a Partnership Firm. They are seeking judicial intervention against the actions taken by the GST authorities.
The case was presented before the court where Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, represented the petitioners. On the other side, Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appeared on behalf of the Union of India. The core issue revolves around the legality and propriety of the summons and penal actions initiated under the relevant sections of the CGST Act. The petitioners are contesting these actions, arguing against the legal basis and procedural correctness of the steps taken by the GST authorities.
In response to summonses 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, several individuals, including current and former directors of private limited companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company, and a partner of a partnership firm, have filed writ petitions.
The court heard arguments from Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, senior counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India.
On February 27, 2019, officials from the GST Commissionerate conducted a search at the company’s premises, followed by a summon issued the same day under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The summon required the petitioner to appear on February 28, 2019, to provide truthful evidence related to the enquiry. The petitioner claimed he was traveling for urgent work on February 27, 2019, and requested more time to comply. However, a second summon dated March 1, 2019, directed the petitioner to appear on March 5, 2019. The petitioner did not appear on that date, instead requesting an additional two weeks. Consequently, a third summon dated March 5, 2019, was issued, requiring the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on March 7, 2019, with a warning that failure to comply would result in prosecution. This third summon, dated March 5, 2019, prompted the filing of WP No. 4764 of 2019, challenging its validity.
In a series of writ petitions, various parties, including past and present Directors of Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer, and a Partner of a Partnership Firm, challenged 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.
The court heard arguments from Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India.
A search was conducted at the premises of a company on 27th February 2019 by GST officials, followed by a summons issued to a petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act, requiring appearance on 28th February 2019. The petitioner, citing urgent travel on 27th February, requested additional time to appear and cooperate with the investigation. Despite this request, a second summons was issued on 1st March 2019, directing the petitioner to appear on 5th March 2019. The petitioner failed to appear on that date, instead seeking two more weeks. Consequently, a third summons was issued on 5th March 2019, demanding appearance on 7th March 2019 and threatening prosecution for non-compliance. This third summons led to the filing of WP No.4764 of 2019.
The petitioner in this particular writ petition was the Managing Director of Sujana Universal Industries Limited, a Public Limited Company engaged in manufacturing Iron and Steel products. The premises of this company were also searched on 27th February 2019, and a summons was issued the same day, requiring the petitioner to appear at 5:00 p.m. The petitioner complied and appeared at the office of the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) at the specified time.
In these writ petitions, various individuals, including Directors (past and present) of several Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer, and a 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). They are also contesting the invocation of penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act.
The court heard arguments from Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India.
The issue began when GST officials conducted a search on 27.02.2019 at the premises of one company and issued a summon to one petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act, requiring him to appear on 28.02.2019 to provide evidence. The petitioner, due to urgent travel, requested more time to cooperate with the investigation. Subsequently, a second summon was issued on 01.03.2019, directing the petitioner to appear on 05.03.2019. The petitioner failed to appear and requested an additional two weeks. Consequently, a third summon on 05.03.2019 demanded the petitioner appear on 07.03.2019, threatening prosecution for non-compliance, leading to the filing of WP No. 4764 of 2019.
Another petitioner, the Managing Director of Sujana Universal Industries Limited, faced a similar situation. A search at his company’s premises on 27.02.2019 resulted in a summon to appear the same day. The petitioner complied, undergoing questioning from 5.00 p.m. on 27.02.2019 until 4.00 a.m. on 28.02.2019. Despite being instructed to return in the afternoon of 28.02.2019, he could not due to health issues and requested an extension until 04.03.2019. He did not appear on 04.03.2019 and subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the summon issued on 27.02.2019.
These petitions collectively seek relief from the summons and potential penalties imposed under the CGST Act, highlighting issues of procedural fairness and the petitioners’ inability to comply due to various circumstances.
The writ petitions have been filed by the Directors (past and present) of various private limited companies, a Chief Financial Officer, and a partner of a partnership firm. They challenge 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.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law:
