Himanshu Balram Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioner, Himanshu Balram Gupta, proprietor of M/s. S. H. Exports, filed a writ petition challenging summons issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. The petitioner argued that the DGGI lacked jurisdiction as an investigation into the same subject matter was already being conducted by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Central Tax, Delhi, who had previously issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, and granted permission for search. The petitioner expressed fear of arrest during interrogation. The DGGI, Ahmedabad, issued summons dated 21.10.2019, 27.11.2019, and 23.11.2020. The petitioner sought to quash the investigation and the summons.
Held
The Court held that a writ petition challenging a summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, is not maintainable. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissionerate of Customs, Calcutta vs. M.M.Exports, which states that High Courts should not interfere at the summons stage except in exceptional cases, as the department has not yet formed a firm opinion to issue a show-cause notice. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajnish Kumar, Tuli, which disallowed interference at the summons stage. The Court found the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, Shafi Khan Khokhar and Sayed Ali, to be of no avail. The Court did not entertain the writ application, and the interim protection granted earlier was vacated. The Court also drew attention to observations made by the Delhi High Court regarding the language used in summons, advising against intimidating or minatory language.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, has the jurisdiction to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, when an investigation into the same subject matter is already being conducted by another authority (Principal Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Central Tax, Delhi)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the DGGI, Ahmedabad, lacked jurisdiction to issue summons as the proper officer under the CGST Act, 2017, was the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi South Commissionerate, who had already initiated an investigation and issued summons. The petitioner relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Safi Khan Khokhar vs. State of Maharashtra and the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sayed Ali to support the argument that an authority lacking jurisdiction cannot issue a summons. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or state. However, the court's reasoning implies that the revenue likely contended that the DGGI possesses all-India jurisdiction and that High Courts should not interfere at the summons stage.
Sections Cited
Section 70, Section 193, Section 228, Section 14, Section 73, Section 108
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
C/SCA/16271/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16271 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? YES 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? YES 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? NO ================================================================ HIMANSHU BALRAM GUPTA Versus UNION OF INDIA ================================================================ Appearance: MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR DEVANG VYAS(2794) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,6 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWAL
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.