Smt. Chhaya Devi vs. Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate Noida Through Superintendent Shri Rakesh Mohan

Facts

Smt. Chhaya Devi (the applicant) filed an application under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita to quash a summoning order dated March 17, 2021. This order was passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, in a complaint case initiated by the Central Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, NOIDA. The complaint, arising from Case No. 167 of 2020, was filed under Sections 132(1)(a), 132(1)(h), and 132(1)(i) of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant sought to challenge the summoning order after a delay of approximately four years. The respondent's counsel highlighted that the trial had commenced and prosecution witnesses were being examined.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. This decision was based on two primary considerations: the significant delay of approximately four years in the applicant approaching the High Court to challenge the summoning order, and the fact that the applicant had not availed of alternative statutory remedies. Furthermore, the Court noted that the trial in the complaint case had already commenced, with the prosecution examining its witnesses. Consequently, the application filed by Smt. Chhaya Devi was dismissed. The Court did not decide on the merits of the summoning order itself, focusing solely on the procedural delay and the availability of other remedies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should invoke its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita to quash the summoning order dated March 17, 2021, given the significant delay in filing the application and the commencement of trial proceedings. Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant: The applicant sought to quash the summoning order. No specific arguments regarding the delay or the merits of the summoning order were recorded in the judgment, other than the prayer for adjournment due to senior counsel's engagement elsewhere. Revenue/Opposite Party: The respondent argued that the summoning order was passed on March 17, 2021, and the challenge was brought after four years. They also stated that the trial had commenced and prosecution witnesses were being examined, implying that the applicant had delayed approaching the court and had not availed alternative statutory remedies.