Sh Mukesh Garg vs. State Through Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.

Held

The Court disposed of the petition based on a mutual understanding reached between the parties. The petitioner agreed to appear at the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax office in Delhi whenever called upon to do so. Furthermore, the petitioner committed to appearing before the concerned officer at Indore after a period of forty-five days from the date of the order. The Court bound the petitioner to this statement. Consequently, the respondents were permitted to issue fresh summons for inquiries from the petitioner in Delhi on any date, and for inquiries at Indore, but only on dates beyond the forty-five-day period from the order. This order was passed with the consent of both parties.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukesh Garg, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain the respondents from infringing his fundamental right to life and liberty. The petitioner was aggrieved by a notice dated June 20, 2020, issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Regional Unit, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. This notice required the petitioner to appear at the Indore office on June 25, 2020, to tender his statement and produce specified documents. The petitioner stated he had forwarded the documents but could not appear in person due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and his ill health, which placed him at higher risk. The DGGI, represented by its Additional Director, also joined the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the DGGI's notice dated June 20, 2020, requiring the petitioner to appear in person at Indore, infringes upon his fundamental right to life and liberty, considering the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and his health condition? The petitioner argued that his inability to appear in person at Indore was due to genuine reasons, namely, travel restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and his personal health concerns, which made him a high-risk individual. He contended that forcing him to travel to Indore under these circumstances would be an infringement of his fundamental rights. The respondents, represented by the DGGI, did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's contentions regarding the pandemic and health. However, their presence and the issuance of the notice indicated their intention to proceed with the inquiry. The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents in defense of the notice's immediate enforceability at Indore, given the circumstances.