Suresh Kumar P.P. vs Deputy Director , Genral of GST Intelligence

The petitioners, consisting of the Managing Director and Director of Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd., have filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention against what they describe as arbitrary, illegal, and malicious actions by the respondents, particularly the Assistant Commissioner-GST. They are requesting several forms of relief from the court, including the quashing of an allegedly unauthorized order (Exhibit P2), the refund of ₹1 crore collected by Respondents 4 and 5 with interest, and the quashing of search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that these actions were premature since an audit under Section 65 of the Act for the financial year 2017-18 is still pending. Furthermore, the petitioners seek a declaration from the court that they are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by Local Cable Operators (LCO). They also request compensation for the damage to their reputation and the mental anguish caused by these actions. The petitioners argue that they have been forced to approach the court due to the alleged harassment and misuse of legal provisions by the respondents, particularly the Assistant Commissioner-GST.

The petitioners, consisting of the Managing Director and Director of Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd., have approached the court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking multiple reliefs. They request the court to quash Exhibit P2, which they argue is illegal and unauthorized, and to direct the refund of ₹1 crore collected by Respondents 4 and 5, with interest. Additionally, they seek to quash the search and seizure proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly since the audit under Section 65 for the financial year 2017-18 is still pending. The petitioners also seek a declaration that they are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by Local Cable Operators (LCOs). Furthermore, they demand compensation from Respondents 4 and 5 for the damage caused to their reputation and for the mental agony suffered.

The petitioners allege that the respondents, especially the Assistant Commissioner-GST (Respondent No. 5), have engaged in arbitrary, illegal, and malafide actions, causing significant harm. They contend that their personal liberty was violated when they were taken into custody on June 9, 2020, by Respondents 4 and 5, who allegedly extorted ₹1 crore from them. They claim they were released from custody only after their advocate intervened at midnight. The petitioners further allege that these actions were in clear violation of guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which caution against the misuse of summons provisions in such contexts. The petitioners detail an incident on June 9, 2020, where nine officials under Respondent No. 4 arrived at the residence of the 1st petitioner early in the morning, took him into custody, and issued a summons under Section 70(1) of the Act, leading to their petition seeking judicial intervention against these alleged abuses of power.

The petitioners, comprising the Managing Director and Director of Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd., have approached the court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking various legal remedies against what they allege to be arbitrary, illegal, and malafide actions by the respondents, particularly the Assistant Commissioner of GST. The petitioners seek to quash Exhibit P2, which they claim is unauthorized and illegal, and to obtain a refund of ₹1 crore collected by Respondents 4 and 5, with interest, as evidenced by Exhibit P3. They also request the court to quash the search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that these actions are premature since the audit under Section 65 for the financial year 2017-18 is still pending. Additionally, the petitioners seek a declaration that they are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by Local Cable Operators (LCOs) and request compensation for the damage to their reputation and mental agony caused by the respondents’ actions. The petitioners allege that they were unlawfully detained by the respondents on June 9, 2020, and were coerced into issuing a cheque for ₹1 crore under duress. They claim that the detention and subsequent actions by the respondents were in violation of the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and were an abuse of the powers conferred under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 139 of the GST Rules, 2017. The petitioners argue that Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. is a legitimate company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, and the GST Department, providing cable services under regulations issued by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The company is required to execute interconnection agreements with LCOs as per TRAI regulations, and the LCOs are responsible for collecting subscriptions from subscribers. The petitioners claim that the actions taken against them are unjustified and have caused significant harm to their business and reputation.

The petitioners, who are the Managing Director and Director of Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd., have filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking various legal remedies against what they allege are illegal and arbitrary actions by the respondents, particularly the Assistant Commissioner of GST. They are asking the court to quash Exhibit P2, which they claim is unauthorized, and to order the refund of ₹1 crore, which was allegedly extorted from them under duress, along with interest. They also seek to quash the search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that the audit for the financial year 2017-18 under Section 65 is still pending, making the proceedings premature. Additionally, they request a declaration that they are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by the Local Cable Operators (LCO) and seek compensation for the damage to their reputation and mental anguish caused by the respondents. The petitioners allege that on June 9, 2020, a group of officials, acting under Respondent No. 4, forcibly took Petitioner No. 1 into custody early in the morning, compelling him to issue a cheque for ₹1 crore under protest. This action, they claim, violated their personal liberty and was carried out in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which caution against the misuse of summons provisions. The petitioners argue that the seizure of documents and the coercion to issue the cheque were not conducted by a proper officer, and they emphasize that their company, registered under the Companies Act, 2013, and with the GST Department, has always complied with its statutory obligations. Despite these efforts, they received a notice for an audit under Section 65 of the CGST Act only after two months had passed since the disputed seizure and extortion, further highlighting the alleged misuse of authority by the respondents.

In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the Managing Director and Director of Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd., seek judicial intervention against what they allege to be illegal and arbitrary actions by various GST authorities. They have made several requests, including the quashing of an allegedly unauthorized Exhibit P2, a direction to refund ₹1 crore collected by the GST authorities, and the quashing of search and seizure proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, which they argue was improper given that an audit under Section 65 for the financial year 2017-18 was still pending. The petitioners also seek a declaration that they are not liable to pay GST on revenue shares retained by Local Cable Operators (LCOs) and demand compensation for the damage to their reputation and mental anguish caused by the respondents’ actions.

The petitioners claim that these actions, particularly by the Assistant Commissioner-GST, were not only arbitrary but also carried out with malafide intent. They allege that they were unlawfully detained on June 9, 2020, by a group of officials led by Respondent No. 4, who demanded a ₹1 crore cheque, which was handed over under protest. The petitioners were allegedly released only after their advocate intervened. The respondents are accused of violating guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and misusing their powers, including improperly executing search and seizure operations under Section 67 of the CGST Act and issuing summons under Section 70(1).

The petitioners assert that their company, registered under both the Companies Act, 2013, and the GST Act, has always complied with statutory responsibilities, including tax obligations shared with LCOs according to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) regulations. They argue that the seizure of documents was conducted by an unauthorized officer and that there is no legal basis in the GST Act for the forced payment of ₹1 crore. Moreover, the petitioners emphasize that the audit process initiated under Section 65 has been mishandled, and that the respondents have overstepped their legal boundaries, leading to the violation of the petitioners’ rights. The petition is challenged on grounds of maintainability, but the petitioners contend that the actions of the GST authorities, particularly the issuance of the notice in Exhibit P2, were without lawful authority and have caused them significant harm.

The petitioners, comprising the Managing Director and Director of Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd., have approached the court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking multiple reliefs. They request the quashing of Exhibit P2, which they allege is illegal and unauthorized, and demand the refund of ₹1 crore, collected by Respondents 4 and 5, with interest. They also seek to quash the search and seizure proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that an audit under Section 65 for the financial year 2017-18 is still pending, making the seizure premature. Additionally, they seek a declaration that they are not liable to pay GST on the revenue share retained by the Local Cable Operators (LCOs) and demand compensation for the damage to their reputation and the mental agony caused by the respondents’ actions.

The petitioners argue that they were compelled to approach the court due to the arbitrary, illegal, and malicious actions of the respondents, particularly the Assistant Commissioner-GST, who allegedly harassed them under the guise of Section 67 of the CGST Act. They assert that their personal liberty was violated when they were taken into custody on June 9, 2020, and coerced into issuing a cheque for ₹1 crore under duress. They were only released after the intervention of their lawyer late at night. The petitioners contend that the actions of the respondents, including the seizure of documents, were unlawful and conducted without proper authority. They emphasize that Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. is a registered company under the Companies Act, 2013, and the GST Department, engaged in providing cable services as a Multi-Service Operator regulated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The petitioners argue that the responsibility to pay taxes on the revenue share is clearly defined in their agreements with the LCOs, and they have not defaulted on any statutory responsibilities.

The respondents, however, claim that the actions taken were within the legal framework provided by the CGST Act, arguing that the petitioners voluntarily made the payment and that the notices for audit and other procedures were issued lawfully. The court, after hearing both parties, found no merit in the petitioners’ arguments, emphasizing that the statutory powers of inspection, arrest, and summoning under the CGST Act are designed to prevent tax evasion and that the petitioners had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claims of harassment or unlawful conduct by the GST officers.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: