Pramod Kumar Agarwal And 2 Others vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, challenged a summons dated 02.02.2022 issued by Respondent No. 4 (Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence) under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The summons directed them to appear in person on 17.02.2022 at 10:30 a.m. concerning alleged evasion of GST. The summons was issued pursuant to an investigation into the alleged illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondents, which the petitioners claimed violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to permit them to appear virtually before the respondent. The summons was issued in relation to alleged GST evasion by the petitioners.

Held

The Court, without delving into the contentious issues raised in the writ petition, acknowledged the petitioners' submission regarding a family bereavement and the subsequent mourning period. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Director General of GST Intelligence fairly submitted that the respondents had no objection to the petitioners' request. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioners shall respond to the summons dated 02.02.2022 and appear before Respondent No. 4 on 08.03.2022 at 11:30 a.m., physically. The Court disposed of the writ petition subject to this direction, and any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. The ratio decidendi is that courts may grant relief by adjourning dates of appearance in response to statutory summons when genuine personal circumstances, such as bereavement, are presented and not objected to by the revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to appear virtually before Respondent No. 4 in response to the summons dated 02.02.2022, as per Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering their request due to a family bereavement? The petitioners argued that due to a family bereavement on 04.02.2022, there was a tradition of mourning for thirty days. They requested that the date of appearance be fixed after this mourning period, and indicated willingness to comply with the summons if a later date was provided. They did not explicitly argue on the legality of the summons itself but sought an adjournment and modification of the appearance date. The respondents, represented by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Director General of GST Intelligence, fairly submitted that they had no objection to the prayer made by the petitioners regarding the modification of the appearance date.