Suresh Balkrishna Jajra VS Union Of India

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking an exemption from personal appearance, which has been mandated by a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as “the Act of 2017”). The summons in question was issued by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner does not challenge the jurisdiction of the authority that issued the summons, nor does the petition allege that the order was made while exercising any improper jurisdiction or authority. The core issue presented by the petitioner is the request for relief from the obligation of personal appearance, which has been imposed by the summons under the statutory provisions of the Act of 2017.

In this context, the petition does not dispute the legitimacy of the summons or the authority’s power to issue it under the Act. Instead, the focus is specifically on the petitioner’s request for an exemption from personally appearing before the authority, which they argue should be granted for reasons that are not specified in the summary but are likely elaborated upon in the detailed petition. This relief is sought under the framework of the Act of 2017, which governs the procedure for summoning individuals in relation to the investigation, assessment, or adjudication processes under the Goods and Services Tax regime.

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a directive to exempt them from personally appearing in response to a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act of 2017”) by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner is not challenging the jurisdiction of the authority nor alleging that the order was issued with any malice toward a specific authority. Instead, the petitioner argues that they are entitled to be represented by an authorized representative, as permitted under Section 116 of the Act of 2017.

The petitioner’s counsel further contends that, based on clarifications provided in Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), the petitioner’s request to be represented through an authorized representative should be seriously considered by the respondents. The counsel argues that personal appearance should not be insisted upon in all cases unless absolutely necessary, and that the petitioner should be allowed to respond to queries through their representative. To support this argument, the counsel cites a precedent set by the Bombay High Court in the order dated January 10, 2022, in the case of FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (L) No. 30974/2021).

In this petition, the petitioner seeks an exemption from personal appearance following a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘the Act of 2017’) by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner does not challenge the jurisdiction of the authority or allege any malice or misconduct by any specific authority in the issuance of the order. Instead, the petitioner argues that they have the right to be represented by an authorized representative under Section 116 of the Act of 2017.

The petitioner’s counsel further argues that, according to clarifications provided in FAQs, the option for representation through an authorized representative should be duly considered by the respondents. The counsel contends that personal appearance should not be mandatory unless absolutely necessary, and the petitioner should be allowed to respond to queries through their representative. In support of this argument, the petitioner cites a previous order dated January 10, 2022, issued by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (L) No. 30974/2021).

Additionally, the petitioner expresses concern that the GST authorities have been acting in a high-handed manner, citing an incident where the petitioner’s son was apprehended during a search and seizure operation. This apprehension contributes to the petitioner’s fear of potential harassment by the authorities.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking exemption from personal appearance in response to summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner does not challenge the jurisdiction of the authority or allege any malice in the issuance of the summons. Instead, the petitioner argues that under Section 116 of the CGST Act, 2017, he is entitled to be represented by an authorized representative, and therefore, his personal appearance should not be mandatory.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the respondents should consider the petitioner’s representation through an authorized representative, particularly since the FAQs and clarifications indicate that personal appearance may not be necessary unless absolutely required. The counsel also refers to a precedent set by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of *FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* (Writ Petition (L) No. 30974/2021), where a similar situation was addressed. Furthermore, the petitioner expresses concern about being harassed by the GST authorities, citing an incident where his son was apprehended during a search and seizure operation.

On the other hand, the respondents’ counsel argues that the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, by Respondent No. 3, were done so lawfully, exercising powers granted under the Act. The counsel contends that since the petitioner has been specifically directed to appear personally, the provisions of Section 116, which allow for representation through an authorized person, are not applicable in this case. Additionally, the respondents’ counsel asserts that the authorities are presumed to exercise their powers in accordance with the law.

The petitioner has filed a petition seeking an exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the “Act of 2017”) by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner is not challenging the jurisdiction of the authority or alleging any malice against the authority; rather, the challenge is based on the petitioner’s right to be represented by an authorized representative as provided under Section 116 of the Act of 2017.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the petitioner should be allowed to be represented by an authorized representative, especially in light of clarifications provided in Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The counsel contends that personal appearance should not be insisted upon unless absolutely necessary, allowing the representative to respond to various queries. The petitioner relies on a previous order dated January 10, 2022, by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of *FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* (Writ Petition (L) No. 30974/2021). The petitioner further claims that GST authorities are acting in a high-handed manner, citing an instance where the petitioner’s son was apprehended during a search and seizure process, which raises concerns about potential harassment.

In response, the counsel for the respondents argues that the summons were lawfully issued under Section 70 of the Act of 2017, and that the petitioner has been specifically directed to appear personally, making the provisions of Section 116 inapplicable. The respondents contend that the authorities are presumed to act in accordance with the law, and without any specific allegations against the issuing authority, the petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief. They further argue that Section 116 does not apply when an individual is required to appear personally for examination on oath or affirmation, as explicitly stated in the language of the statute.

The court noted that Section 116 allows representation by an authorized representative except in cases where personal appearance is required under the Act. As the petitioner has been summoned to appear personally, Section 116 does not apply, and therefore, no relief can be granted on that basis. The petitioner’s reliance on FAQs and the judgment in the *FSM Education Pvt. Ltd.* case was also deemed misplaced. The FAQs do not override statutory provisions, and the cited case involved different factual circumstances where the court exercised its discretion. Consequently, the petitioner’s request for exemption from personal appearance was denied.

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the “Act of 2017”) by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner argues that he should be allowed to be represented through an authorized representative as provided under Section 116 of the Act of 2017, and that personal appearance should not be mandatory unless absolutely necessary. The petitioner supports this argument by referencing clarifications provided in FAQs and an order from the High Court of Bombay in the case of *FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* (Writ Petition (L) No. 30974/2021).

The petitioner also expresses concerns about being harassed by GST authorities, noting that his son was apprehended during a search and seizure operation. The respondent, however, maintains that the summons were lawfully issued under Section 70 of the Act of 2017, and that Section 116 does not apply when a person is required to appear personally for examination under oath. The respondent further argues that without any specific allegations of wrongdoing by the authority issuing the summons, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought.

The Court agrees with the respondent’s interpretation that Section 116 does not apply when personal appearance is required under the Act. The Court also dismisses the petitioner’s reliance on FAQs and the Bombay High Court judgment, noting that the latter was based on specific facts not applicable to this case. The Court concludes that it cannot issue a mandamus requiring the respondent to permit representation through an authorized representative when the law mandates personal appearance.

The Court further states that any request for rescheduling the appearance or other relief due to personal circumstances should be made directly to the concerned authority, and it is not within the Court’s purview to grant such relief. The Court also references the Supreme Court’s decision in *Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh & Others* (2021) 1 SCC 184, reminding the respondents of the procedural safeguards that must be followed when recording statements under Section 70 of the Act of 2017.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: