VenKata Satya Dharmavathar Bollina VS Union of India

In the present writ petitions, the challenge is mounted against the actions taken by the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, particularly concerning the summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), and the subsequent invocation of penal provisions under Section 69 of the same Act. The petitioners include past and present directors of several private limited companies, a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of one company, and a partner of a partnership firm. The crux of their challenge revolves around the legality and procedural propriety of the summons and the penal actions initiated. These individuals argue that the summons were issued improperly and the penal provisions invoked were unwarranted in their cases.

The case has been presented before the court where Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, distinguished Senior Counsels, represent the petitioners, while Mr. K.M. Nataraj, the Additional Solicitor General, appears on behalf of the Union of India. During the proceedings, the court has carefully considered the arguments and submissions made by both sides.

The facts of each case differ slightly, necessitating a separate examination for each writ petition. Therefore, the court has decided to address the specific details and nuances of each case individually. This approach allows for a thorough and precise assessment of the claims made by the petitioners and the responses from the GST Commissionerate. As such, the court will evaluate the legality of the summonses and the appropriateness of the penal actions on a case-by-case basis, ensuring that each petition is judged based on its unique circumstances and merits.

The petitioner in WP No.4764 of 2019 is the Managing Director of Infinity Metals Products India Limited, a publicly listed company involved in the manufacturing of iron and steel products. On February 27, 2019, the GST Commissionerate conducted a search of the company’s premises and subsequently issued a summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), directing the petitioner to appear on February 28, 2019, to provide evidence related to the investigation. However, due to urgent travel obligations on February 27, the petitioner requested an extension to appear and cooperate with the investigation. In response, a second summons was issued on March 1, 2019, instructing the petitioner to appear on March 5, 2019. The petitioner did not comply with this second summons, instead submitting a request for a two-week extension. Consequently, a third summons was issued on March 5, 2019, requiring the petitioner to appear on March 7, 2019, with a warning of potential prosecution for non-compliance. The petitioner has filed WP No.4764 of 2019 to challenge the third summons, arguing that the summons was issued unfairly and that the subsequent threats of prosecution were unjustified.

In WP No.4764 of 2019, the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of Infinity Metals Products India Limited, a publicly listed company engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, is challenging the series of summonses issued by the GST Commissionerate. The issues began on February 27, 2019, when GST officials conducted a search of the company’s premises as part of an investigation. Following this search, a summons was issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), requiring him to appear on February 28, 2019, to provide evidence pertinent to the ongoing investigation.

Due to urgent travel obligations on February 27, the petitioner was unable to attend on the scheduled date and requested an extension to comply with the summons. In response to this request, a second summons was issued on March 1, 2019, directing the petitioner to appear on March 5, 2019. Despite the second summons, the petitioner failed to appear on March 5 and instead submitted another request for a two-week extension. As a result, a third summons was issued on March 5, 2019, mandating the petitioner to appear on March 7, 2019, and accompanied by a warning that failure to comply could lead to prosecution.

The petitioner has now filed WP No.4764 of 2019, challenging the third summons. He contends that the summonses were issued unfairly and that the threat of prosecution was unjustified. The writ petition seeks judicial review of these actions to address the perceived procedural and substantive injustices in the issuance and enforcement of the summonses.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: