Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioners' voluntary willingness to participate in the adjudicatory process. It directed the concerned authority to complete the adjudication within eight weeks from the date of the order. The Court also stipulated that if, after the adjudication, the petitioners fail to fulfill their obligations, they would be given an additional two weeks to take necessary steps. The petitioners were directed to appear before the concerned Police Station on or before January 11, 2019. The Court disposed of the applications based on these directions, effectively granting interim protection pending adjudication and setting a timeline for the process. The primary issue of whether coercive action should be stayed was resolved by directing the adjudication to be completed within a specific timeframe.

Facts

The petitioners, Choodamani Parameshwaran Iyer, filed two Special Criminal Applications before the Gujarat High Court. They were apprehensive of coercive action, including arrest, due to summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, made applicable to service tax, and Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners expressed willingness to cooperate with the adjudicatory process regarding the liability of their firms but sought protection from immediate apprehension until their liabilities were determined. The State argued that the issuance of summons itself should not cause apprehension and that the petitioners should appear.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection from coercive action pending the adjudication of their tax liability under the CGST Act and related provisions? (Question of law and mixed fact). The petitioners argued that they are willing to participate in the adjudication process and provide evidence, but they fear arrest based on past instances where individuals were arrested before final adjudication. They relied on their willingness to cooperate and the need for a fair determination of liability. The revenue (State) contended that the issuance of summons implies a need for the petitioners to appear and that there should be no apprehension, as they are expected to respond to the summons.