Manmohan Harlalka vs. Additional Assistant Director Directorate General Of GST Intelligence Sub Natl Unit East And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Monmohan Harlalka, is challenging the repeated issuance of summons by the Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The first summons was issued on June 21, 2021, to which the appellant appeared and provided oral and written statements. Subsequently, multiple summons were issued on June 20, 2022, June 24, 2022, and June 27, 2022, for the same investigation. The appellant contended that these repeated summons, without specifying new reasons, constituted harassment. The appellant had also made a representation on July 4, 2022, highlighting his prior compliance and requesting clarity on the necessity of further summons.

Held

The Court held that while the authority has the power to call for further appearances, the issuance of multiple summons for the same reason, after the appellant had already complied with the initial summons and provided written submissions, was not appreciated. The Court found that it was open to the authority to call the appellant for further hearing to obtain details emanating from the written submission or from any fresh material. However, the repeated issuance of summons without clear justification was deemed inappropriate. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to issue a notice to the appellant clearly stating the purpose for which his appearance is required, especially after he had already appeared and given written statements. If such a notice is issued, the appellant is directed to appear and cooperate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the repeated issuance of summons by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence to the appellant for the same investigation, after the appellant had already appeared and provided statements, amounts to harassment and is legally sustainable? (Section 150 of CGST Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice). The appellant argued that the issuance of multiple summons for the same purpose, without specifying new reasons or developments in the investigation, constitutes harassment and an abuse of process. He contended that once he had complied with the initial summons and provided all required information, further summons should only be issued if new material or specific clarifications are needed, which should be clearly communicated. The revenue, through the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the authority has the power to call for further appearance to obtain necessary details, especially if fresh material has come to light or if further clarification is needed based on the initial submissions. They contended that the issuance of subsequent summons was a procedural step in the ongoing investigation.