M/S Pacifica (INDIA) Projects Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax

WP/7811/2023HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01014458202322 April 2024Bench: SUJOY PAUL,N.TUKARAMJI5 pages

For Petitioner: SRI S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR, M/s. R.S. ASSOCIATESFor Respondent: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR CBIC

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pacifica (India) Projects Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court. The petitioner challenged the action of the respondents, the Commissioner of Central Tax and other GST authorities, in insisting on the appearance of the Managing Director for recording a statement. The petitioner requested to permit their authorized signatory to appear instead. The petitioner also sought a direction to prevent the arrest of any employees, including the Managing Director, under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017. The proceedings relate to an investigation by the GST authorities.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on a consensus reached between the parties. The respondents agreed to issue fresh summons directing the appearance of the Managing Director of the petitioner-company for recording his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. A date for appearance was to be fixed within ten days, and if the statement could not be fully recorded on that day, the department was at liberty to fix another date within the subsequent ten days. Crucially, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC informed the Court that the Managing Director would not be arrested in connection with the impugned proceedings or the writ petition proceedings. The parties submitted that nothing further remained to be adjudicated. The Court directed the parties to act in accordance with their agreed stand, with no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' insistence on the appearance of the Managing Director of the petitioner-company, instead of permitting the authorized signatory, for recording a statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, is void, illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the authorized signatory is competent to represent the company and provide necessary information, making the demand for the Managing Director's personal appearance unreasonable and potentially harassing. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to allow the authorized signatory to appear. The respondents' specific arguments are not detailed in the judgment, but their action of insisting on the Managing Director's appearance implies a belief in the necessity of his personal deposition. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection against the arrest of its employees, including the Managing Director, under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, pending the outcome of the investigation? The petitioner sought this protection to prevent undue hardship and disruption to business operations.

Sections Cited

Section 70, Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

I s403 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 7811 OF 2023 Between: M/s Pacifica (lndia) Projects Private Limited, Having its office at Pacifica House 4, 5, Sigma - l, Behind Rajpath Club, Near Mann Party Plot, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad. 380059 Represented by its authorized signatory Mr. A. Srinivas, S/o. Late A. Narayana, Aged about 48 Years, R/o. Hyderabad ...pETt,oNER AND 1. The Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bahavan, Tiak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad -500 001 2. Superintendent (Anti Evasion), Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST, Commissionerate 3. lnspector (Anti - Evasion), Central Tax, Ranga Reddy Oar, "oTIS""iXlo1fr,r"S Petition under Afiicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to (a) to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in insisting the appearance of the tVanaging Director of the Petitioner and rejecting the request of the Petitioner to permit the authorized signatory to appear as being void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19,21 of the Constitution of lndia, (b) to pass a writ order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos 1 to 3 to permit the authorized signatory of the Petitioner to appear in pursuance of the summons, (c) ln the alternative to pass a writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos 1 to 3 to permit the Managing Director to appear in pursuance of the summons through virtual mode lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated ln the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to permit the authorized signatory of the Petitioner to appear in pursuance of the summons issued by the respondents. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to arrest any of the employees of the Petitioner including the Managing Director of the Petitioner by invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 IANO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to receive the documents i.e., a copy of notice daled 28-O2-2O24 issued by Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, a copy of reply letter dated 12-03-2024 issued by the Petitioner to Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, a copy of notice dated 01- 03-2024 issued by Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/s. R.S. ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondents: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER ,./ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUI(ARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7811 OF 2O2g

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul) Heard Mr. S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for the respondents.

With the consent, fina-lly heard.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties, reached to a consensus and they agreed that if the respondents issue fresh summons directing appearance of Managing Director of the petitioner-company for recording his statement under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and a date is fixed within a period of ten (1O) days, the Managing Director of the petitioner- company shall appear on the said date and if his statement could not be completely recorded on the said date, the department will be at liberty to fix another date within ten (10) days therefrom.

Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel, after obtaining instructions, informs that the Managing Director of the petitioner_ company shall not be arrested in connection with the impugned proceedings or in connection with these proceedings.

The parties submit that apart from this nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the parties to act in accordance with the stand taken by them hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this wrrt petition shall stand closed. To, 'o'-'i53BTf$f REt,SRIX /rrRUE coPY// secrtolgi/rrtcEn rhecommissionerof .centrarkhflil:fi ft??:ilr".t-1.3"fi T""]"_T""' Posnett Bahavan, Tiak Road, TX;' b',]'ff ;ffi ll"iiri,iti E,i.i "" i, cLnt'.it rax' Ransa Reddv G Sr' Commissionerate fi;'i;";;i;r. A;ti - Evasion)' central rax' Ransa Reddv GSr' Com m ission erate. #; CCi;N,t/;.-i S. Associates Advocate [oPUCl . ^-.- 5nE ;d i6 Siioo.ini" r"rn"nili, senioi iounseiforcBlC (oPUc) Two CD CoPies 2 3 4. 5. 6 MBC / t-

HIGH COURT SP,J & NTR,J DATED: 2210412024 l'-' \t\L i'lAi /'lo" /t\ (j r:I", /,-i Ii .; lir \l ,,, \..'1. .\ I s uN 2[24 a ,}, -\'' * A.r ORDER WP.No.7811 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION \S WITHOUT COSTS

Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.