Ankush Jain S/O Shri Surendra Jain vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the first submission of the petitioner, regarding the summons being without jurisdiction due to the nature of "Non Physical Import," lacked merit. The Court reasoned that Section 108 of the Customs Act empowers a Gazetted Officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary for evidence or document production in any inquiry under the Act, irrespective of whether the inquiry is directed against that person or whether the subject matter is chargeable to customs duty. The Court found no vagueness in the summons, noting that the documents requested were specific. It also held that the supply of some documents earlier did not render the current summons invalid, as copies could be resubmitted or an explanation provided. Regarding the GST guidelines, the Court stated they were not applicable to summons issued under the Customs Act, even if the provisions were pari materia, and that guidelines do not have binding force. The Court implicitly considered the petitioner summoned as a witness, as he was not named as an accused. The apprehension of arrest was deemed misconceived, with the petitioner advised to seek remedies like anticipatory bail. The Court found no prejudice caused to the petitioner by the summons and declined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Ankush Jain, filed a writ petition challenging a summons issued to him under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The summons, dated September 20, 2022, required him to appear on October 12, 2022, to give evidence and produce documents including a tender statement, bank statements from April 2017 onwards, and Income Tax Returns (ITR) from April 2017 to March 2022. The petitioner argued that the inquiry concerned "Non Physical Import," which he contended are not goods covered by the Customs Act, rendering the summons without jurisdiction. He also stated he had already provided some requested information in response to earlier summons and that the summons lacked specificity regarding his status (accused, co-accused, or witness), citing GST guidelines. He further apprehended arrest upon compliance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, are without jurisdiction as the inquiry pertains to "Non Physical Import" which the petitioner claims are not goods covered by the Act? 2. Whether the summons are vague and unjustified due to the petitioner having already supplied some of the requested information and the lack of specific indication of his status (accused, co-accused, or witness)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the summons were without jurisdiction because the inquiry related to "Non Physical Import," which are not goods subject to the Customs Act. He argued that repeated summons were unjustified as he had already provided some of the requested documents. Furthermore, he asserted that the summons were bad in law for failing to specify whether he was summoned as an accused, co-accused, or witness, referencing GST guidelines which he considered pari materia with Section 108 of the Customs Act. He also apprehended arrest upon attending the summons. Respondents' arguments: The respondents did not explicitly record their arguments in the judgment, but the Court's reasoning implies they defended the validity of the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act and the necessity of the inquiry.