Suresh Balkrishna Jajra Son Of Late Shri Bal Krishan Jajra vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Suresh Balkrishna Jajra, filed a writ petition seeking exemption from personal appearance pursuant to summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by Respondent No. 3. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to be represented by an authorised representative under Section 116 of the Act and referred to clarifications in FAQs. He also alleged high-handed actions by GST authorities, including the apprehension of his son, leading to his apprehension of harassment. The respondents argued that the summons were issued legally under Section 70, and Section 116 would not apply when personal appearance for examination on oath is required. They asserted that authorities are presumed to act lawfully.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's argument for representation by an authorised representative under Section 116 of the Act is not legally tenable because Section 116(1) explicitly states that it does not apply when a person is required to appear personally for examination on oath or affirmation. The Court found that the FAQs do not override statutory provisions and cannot permit representation against the law. The reliance on the Bombay High Court judgment was deemed misplaced as the facts and the Court's discretion in that case were different. The Court clarified that while it cannot issue a mandamus for representation where no such right exists, it is open for the petitioner to approach the authority with applications for limited relief, such as changing the date of appearance due to unavoidable reasons. The Court also noted, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & Others, that respondents must follow laid-down procedures, including the installation of CCTV cameras, during personal appearance and statement recording under Section 70.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be represented by an authorised representative under Section 116 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when summoned for personal appearance and examination on oath? 2. Whether the clarifications in FAQs permit representation by an authorised representative even in cases not covered by Section 116 of the Act? 3. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow representation by an authorised representative? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 116 of the Act allows for representation by an authorised representative. He also relied on FAQs and a Bombay High Court judgment (FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India) to support his claim. He further highlighted alleged high-handed actions by GST authorities as a basis for his apprehension. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that Section 116 is not applicable when personal appearance for examination on oath is mandated. They argued that the authorities are presumed to act in accordance with the law and that the petitioner has no right to be represented by an authorised representative in such circumstances.