Subway Systems India (p.) Ltd. vs Union of India

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the summons issued to them on multiple grounds. The petition primarily revolves around the contention that the authorities did not provide adequate time for the petitioner to respond to the summons. According to the petitioner’s counsel, upon receiving the first summons, the petitioner had promptly informed the authorities that they would need a period of two weeks to gather the necessary documents and materials to comply with the summons and appear before the concerned officer. This request for a reasonable amount of time was made in good faith, with the understanding that the petitioner would need sufficient time to prepare a comprehensive response and ensure that all relevant information was available for review.

However, despite this request, the petitioner argues that the authorities proceeded to issue additional summonses without allowing the petitioner the time they had requested. The petitioner contends that this action by the authorities was not only unreasonable but also placed undue pressure on them, as it did not provide sufficient breathing room to gather the necessary documents and prepare for the appearance. The repeated issuance of summonses, in such a short span of time, is perceived by the petitioner as an overreach by the authorities, failing to consider the practical difficulties involved in assembling the required materials within such a limited timeframe.

The matter was brought before the court through a notice of motion, where Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior Standing Counsel, along with Mr. Gagandeep Singh Malhotra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondents, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). During the proceedings, Mr. Bindlish, representing the CBIC, acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns regarding the time constraints imposed by the repeated summonses. He expressed a fair and reasonable approach by stating that if the petitioner appears before the concerned officer on or before November 29, 2021, their request for additional time would be accommodated, and a hearing would be granted.

This statement by Mr. Bindlish indicates a willingness on the part of the authorities to consider the petitioner’s request for a fair opportunity to present their case. It suggests that the authorities recognize the importance of giving the petitioner adequate time to prepare for their appearance, which is essential for ensuring a fair and just process. The court’s acceptance of this approach implies that the petitioner’s request for time will be respected, and the process will move forward with an understanding that the petitioner needs sufficient time to gather all necessary information and materials.

The case highlights the importance of balancing the need for compliance with legal summonses and the practical challenges faced by those who are required to respond to such summonses. It underscores the need for authorities to consider the circumstances of each case and provide reasonable timeframes for compliance, especially when complex or extensive documentation is involved. By acknowledging the petitioner’s request for additional time and agreeing to grant a hearing if the petitioner appears by the specified date, the authorities have taken a step towards ensuring that the legal process is conducted fairly and with due consideration of the petitioner’s situation.

In conclusion, this petition serves as a significant reminder of the need for fairness and reasonableness in the enforcement of legal procedures. It demonstrates the necessity of allowing adequate time for individuals or entities to respond to legal summonses, particularly when they are required to gather substantial amounts of information. The authorities’ willingness to grant a hearing if the petitioner complies with the revised timeline indicates a recognition of these principles, which are fundamental to the administration of justice. The outcome of this petition may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, emphasizing the importance of providing reasonable timeframes and considering the practical realities faced by those who are subject to legal proceedings.

In this petition, the petitioner has contested the issuance of multiple summonses, presenting several objections to their validity and fairness. The central argument put forth by the petitioner’s counsel revolves around the timeline given for compliance. After receiving the first summons, the petitioner promptly communicated to the authorities that they would require two weeks to gather all the necessary materials to adequately respond and appear before them. Despite this clear request for a reasonable period to prepare, the authorities continued to issue additional summonses without allowing the petitioner sufficient time, effectively pressuring them to comply under constrained circumstances.

This sequence of events led the petitioner to challenge the manner in which the summonses were issued, arguing that it deprived them of the opportunity to adequately prepare and respond, which is a fundamental right in such proceedings. The petitioner’s contention is that the issuance of further summonses, without granting the requested time, is not only unfair but also undermines the principles of natural justice.

Upon reviewing the petition, the court issued a notice of motion. Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Senior Standing Counsel, along with Mr. Gagandeep Singh Malhotra, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondents from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). During the proceedings, Mr. Bindlish acknowledged the petitioner’s request for additional time and agreed that if the petitioner appears before the concerned officer on or before November 29, 2021, they would be granted a hearing. This hearing would allow the petitioner to present their case, submit any necessary materials, and make arguments both on legal and factual grounds.

The court, in its order, directed that the petition be disposed of on the basis that if the petitioner complies with the appearance date of November 29, 2021, they should be allowed to file their reply and make detailed submissions. The concerned officer is instructed to consider these submissions carefully and to make a decision by issuing a speaking order, which is an order that provides detailed reasons for the decision, ensuring that the process is transparent and in accordance with the law.

Furthermore, the court noted that since the main petition has been resolved with these directions, any pending civil miscellaneous applications related to this case are also disposed of. This means that any other issues or requests made by the petitioner that were ancillary to the main petition are considered resolved in light of the court’s directive.

In summary, the petition highlights concerns over procedural fairness, particularly the timing and issuance of summonses, and seeks to ensure that the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to prepare and present their case. The court’s order aims to balance the need for compliance with legal procedures while safeguarding the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing, ultimately resolving the petition with directions that promote justice and due process.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Anther Case Law:

GST Case Law: