As per sub-Section (1) of Section 70, the proper officer is empowered to summon any individual whose presence is deemed necessary to provide evidence or produce documents or other items during an inquiry. This authority is exercised in a manner similar to that of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code.
Sub-section (2) of Section 70 further stipulates that any such inquiry mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be considered judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. This ensures that false statements and interruptions during these proceedings are subject to legal consequences.
The provision empowers the proper officer to summon a person either for giving evidence or producing documents, but it also imposes controls to prevent arbitrary use of this power. Summons can only be issued if the officer deems it necessary for the person to provide evidence or documents. The powers are guided and regulated, ensuring they are not misused.
Additionally, these powers must be exercised in the same manner as those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically under Order 5, which deals with the issuance and service of summons. This order outlines detailed procedures for how summons should be issued and served, ensuring proper legal process is followed. Thus, the exercise of powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 70 is subject to established legal protocols to maintain fairness and order in judicial inquiries.
Sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the relevant statute grants a proper officer the authority to summon any individual deemed necessary to either provide evidence or produce documents or other items in an inquiry. This authority is exercised similarly to that of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Sub-section (2) of Section 70 further stipulates that such inquiries are considered judicial proceedings within the scope of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The provision allows proper officers to summon individuals for evidence or document production but ensures that such power is guided and regulated. This is achieved by mandating that the summons can only be issued when it is deemed necessary by the officer. Additionally, these powers must be exercised in the same manner as those of a civil court under the CPC, specifically referencing Order 5, which details the procedures for issuing and serving summons.
To maintain the integrity of the information provided, Sub-section (2) declares that inquiries under Sub-section (1) are judicial proceedings, thereby subjecting them to the legal standards and consequences of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. This provision supports the legitimacy and constitutionality of the powers vested in the proper officers, aligning with similar provisions in Section 14C of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act, which empower officers to summon witnesses for statements or document production.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Madras Bar Association case, which addresses the independence of judiciary and tribunals, is deemed irrelevant to this context. Regarding the specific challenge to a summon, it is noted that the authority specifies the documents required for the summoned individual’s appearance. If a summon provides an unreasonably short response time, the individual can request an extension from the authority or seek court intervention. However, such issues alone do not justify challenging the validity of the summon.
Under sub-Section (1) of Section 70, the proper officer has the authority to summon any individual whose presence is deemed necessary to provide evidence or produce documents or other items during an inquiry, similar to the powers of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 70 stipulates that any such inquiry is considered judicial proceedings under Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. This provision ensures that the officer’s power to summon is regulated and is only exercised when necessary, following the procedures outlined in the Civil Procedure Code’s Order 5, which deals with the issuance and service of summons.
The exercise of these powers is controlled and not arbitrary, aligning with the procedures used by civil courts. Sub-section (2) further reinforces the importance of the information provided by treating the inquiry as judicial proceedings, adding a layer of legal seriousness and accountability to the process.
The provision is within the legislative competence and does not violate any fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. Similar provisions exist under Section 14C of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act, which also empower officers to summon individuals for testimony or document production. These sections have been upheld as constitutional.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Madras Bar Association case, which dealt with the independence of judiciary and tribunal functioning, is not relevant to this context.
Regarding the specific summons in question, the authority specified the documents the petitioner needed to bring. If a summons allows an unreasonably short time for compliance, the summoned person can request an extension or seek court intervention. However, in this case, since the summons was issued on 16.12.2021 and the matter has progressed, there is no immediate need for judicial interference on these grounds.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit :
Read Another Case Law :
GST Case Law :
