Pramod Agarwal vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Pramod Agarwal, a partner in M/s. Shri Krishna Distributors and Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging a summons issued under Section 13 of the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025. The petitioner stated that his business obtained GST registration on July 24, 2026, and he had purchased Pan Masala - Bora worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, but had not yet commenced sales. He argued that therefore, no cess could be levied. The petitioner also expressed difficulty due to repeated summons. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and officials from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), stated that the petitioner was being summoned in connection with arrests made and no coercive measures were contemplated against him. They assured that if any coercive measures were to be taken, appropriate proceedings would be initiated.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition, taking on record the submissions made by the respondents. The primary grievance of the petitioner regarding the potential for coercive measures was addressed by the respondents' statement that no such measures were contemplated and that appropriate proceedings would be initiated if necessary. The Court did not delve into the merits of whether the cess was leviable, as the petitioner had not yet commenced sales. Instead, the Court focused on ensuring the petitioner's grievance about potential coercive action was mitigated. The operative direction was that the petitioner shall appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer at the DGGI, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, on October 12, 2026, or any other day informed by the officer. The issue of the leviability of the cess on the petitioner's business was implicitly deferred by the Court's disposal based on the respondents' assurances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summons issued under Section 13 of the Health Security se National Security Cess Act, 2025, is legally sustainable when the petitioner has not commenced business operations and therefore no cess is leviable. The petitioner argued that since he had only recently obtained GST registration (July 24, 2026), purchased goods worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, and had not yet commenced sales, there could be no levy of the cess. He contended that the summons caused him difficulty. The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the petitioner was being summoned in connection with arrests that had been made and that no coercive measures were contemplated against the petitioner. They assured that if any coercive measures were to be initiated, proper proceedings would be filed.