Tai Tajik And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer and the respondent authorities for the purpose of recording their statements within 10 days from the date of the order. The Court reasoned that this direction would facilitate the recording of statements, which is a necessary step in the investigation. The Court also noted the petitioners' submission regarding voluntary payment and willingness to pay GST, and their willingness to cooperate. The judgment relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer. The operative direction was that only if the petitioners failed to appear within the stipulated time would it be open for the authority concerned to proceed further in accordance with law. The Court also stated that in the event of violation by either side, each party would be at liberty to approach the proper forum for redressal. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, Tai Tajik and Kazi Motiur Rahman, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gauhati High Court. Petitioner No. 1 is the proprietor of M/s R T T Enterprise, and Petitioner No. 2 is his associate. A Search Authorization dated October 7, 2023, was issued by the Additional Director of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Guwahati Zonal Unit. Subsequently, a search operation was conducted under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, at the office premises of M/s R T T Enterprises in the absence of the petitioners, and several articles were seized. The petitioners apprehended coercive action against them. They submitted that an amount of Rs. 2,51,04,730/- had been voluntarily paid as per Section 74(5) of the CGST Act and expressed willingness to pay GST according to law, but the assessment was not yet complete. They also stated their willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer for recording their statements, considering their apprehension of coercive action and their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and pay GST as per law. Arguments for the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that they had voluntarily paid a significant amount (Rs. 2,51,04,730/-) under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act and were willing to pay the remaining GST as per law. They expressed their readiness to appear before the Investigating Officer with relevant documents and cooperate fully with the investigation. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Gujarat vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer, which directed respondents to appear before authorities for statement recording. Arguments for the Revenue (Respondents): The Standing Counsel for CGST accepted notices on behalf of the respondents. No specific arguments against the petitioners' request were recorded in the judgment, other than their acceptance of notices and readiness to proceed.