Jayanta Roy And Ors vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Held

The Court held that an order of seizure and a summons cannot be challenged by way of a writ petition. The discrepancy in the summons date (issued November 14, 2021, for appearance on November 1, 2021) was noted but deemed not to invalidate the subsequent proceedings. The question of whether the payment of Rs. 47,99,184 was voluntary or coerced is a factual matter to be decided by the adjudicating authority, not in a writ petition. Since the payment was made through banking channels in the statutory form, the onus is on the appellant to prove it was extracted by undue force or threat. The Court directed that the payment of Rs. 47,99,184 be retained to the credit of the appellant until the show cause notice is issued, adjudicated, and an order is passed. This sum shall not be appropriated against any past dues. The Court also directed the respondent to expeditiously issue the show cause notice, grant the appellant reasonable time to reply, afford a personal hearing, and adjudicate the case on merits. The appellant's retraction statement dated December 30, 2021, is to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Allegations against officers in their personal capacity were deemed not grantable by the writ court.

Facts

The appellant, Jayanta Roy, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the search and seizure conducted in his office on November 1, 2021, as illegal under the CGST Act, 2017. He also sought the return of Rs. 47,99,184, allegedly obtained forcibly, and an interim order. The writ court directed the respondent to dispose of the appellant's representation dated December 30, 2021. The appellant, aggrieved by this order, filed an intra-court appeal. The appellant's representation claimed officers compelled him to make a decision, issued summons, took his signature on blank papers, and forced him to pay Rs. 47,99,184, which he later retracted. The payment was made via e-payment in Form DRC-03.

Key Issues

1. Whether the search and seizure conducted on November 1, 2021, and the summons dated November 14, 2021, directing appearance on November 1, 2021, are legally valid under the CGST Act, 2017? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the payment of Rs. 47,99,184 was voluntarily made or forcibly obtained, and if forcibly obtained, whether it should be returned to the appellant? (Question of fact) Petitioner's arguments: The appellant contended that the search and seizure were conducted contrary to the CGST Act. He highlighted the discrepancy in the summons date, suggesting it was impossible to appear on a date prior to the summons issuance. He argued that the payment was coerced and subsequently retracted. He relied on the principle that coercive methods render subsequent actions invalid. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the appellant cannot question an order of seizure or a summons through a writ petition. They contended that the voluntariness of the payment is a factual matter for the adjudicating authority. They also submitted that allegations against officers in their personal capacity are not maintainable in a writ petition.