Suresh Kumar P.P VS Deputy Director, Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence

The petitioners, who are the Managing Director and Director of a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in providing cable services as a Multi-Service Operator (MSO) under the Telephone Regulatory of India (TRAI) Regulations, have filed an appeal. They claim that illegal proceedings were initiated against them under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). They allege that their residences and offices were raided, they were kept under illegal custody, and an amount of Rupees One Crore was extorted from them. According to the appellants, their release was only secured through the intervention of their advocate at midnight.

In their writ petition, the appellants have sought several reliefs:

1. Setting aside Exhibit P2 notice: This notice required them to provide information as issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO).

2. Invalidation of search and seizure proceedings: These proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act, which is evidenced by Exhibit P4.

3. Refund of Rupees One Crore: The appellants seek the return of the money they allege was extorted from them during the illegal proceedings.

The appellants argue that the actions taken against them were without proper legal basis and constituted an abuse of power. They contend that the search and seizure operations, as well as their detention, were conducted unlawfully. Consequently, they are requesting the court to annul the actions taken under the CGST Act and to return the extorted amount, highlighting the lack of due process and the illegality of the measures imposed on them.

The petitioners, who are the Managing Director and Director of a company providing cable services as a Multi Service Operator (MSO) under the Telephone Regulatory of India (TRAI) Regulations, have filed an appeal. They allege that illegal actions were taken against them under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), including raids on their residences and offices, illegal detention, and extortion of Rupees One Crore. Their advocate’s intervention at midnight led to their release. In their writ petition, they sought:

1. Cancellation of Exhibit P2 notice demanding information issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO).

2. Invalidation of search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act as evidenced by Exhibit P4.

3. Refund of the Rupees One Crore collected by the 4th and 5th respondents.

4. Declaration that they are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by Local Cable Operators (LCOs).

5. Compensation for damage to their reputation and mental agony suffered.

The learned Single Judge found the writ petition premature, noting a lack of evidence to support the petitioners’ claims of harassment. The Judge deemed it inappropriate to form an opinion on the allegations without supporting material and refused to exercise discretion under Article 226, thereby declining the reliefs sought. The petitioners, now in appeal against these findings, have produced additional documents related to the investigation, including orders of attachment of their bank accounts, which occurred after the writ petition was dismissed.

The court has heard arguments from Sri. Mathai M. Paikeday, the learned Senior Counsel, through video-conferencing.

The case revolves around an appeal by the Managing Director and Director of a company providing Cable Services as a Multi-Service Operator (MSO) under the regulations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). They claim that they were subjected to illegal proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Allegations include raids on their residences and offices, illegal custody, and extortion of one crore rupees. The petitioners seek the annulment of notices demanding information, invalidation of search and seizure proceedings, refund of extorted money, a declaration of non-GST liability on revenue shared with Local Cable Operators (LCOs), and compensation for reputational damage and mental anguish.

Initially, the learned Single Judge deemed the writ petition premature due to lack of evidence supporting harassment claims. Discretion under Article 226 was refused, and reliefs were denied. The petitioners now appeal, presenting additional documents, including bank account attachments post the writ petition’s disposal.

During proceedings, Senior Counsel Sri. Mathai M. Paikeday argues the proceedings’ illegality, citing untold misery caused by respondent officers’ alleged high-handed actions. He asserts that audit initiation under Section 65 led to unwarranted investigation under Section 67. Surprise raids commenced early morning and lasted until midnight, with the appellants allegedly subjected to illegal custody without basic amenities. Coercion into surrendering one crore rupees is claimed, supported by Exhibit P3 allegedly executed under duress. Additionally, Exhibit P4, the seizure order, is challenged for lack of jurisdiction due to insufficient grounds for belief by the Senior Intelligence Officer (SIO).

The appeal hearing involves arguments from Senior Counsel Sri. Mathai M. Paikeday, representation from the State GST Department, and discussion of legal points surrounding the alleged illegal actions and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the appellants’ claims.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: