Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent. The Court directed the respondent-authorities to ensure that all proceedings initiated must adhere to the provisions of the CGST Act. Specifically, if the authorities intended to arrest the petitioner, the provisions of Section 69 of the Act were to be strictly adhered to. The Court found no reason for the petitioner to have apprehension given the respondent's categorical statement. The Court did not delve into the merits of the alleged procedural violations but relied on the assurance of future compliance. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was resolved through the respondent's undertaking.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar, CEO and Director of Wegofin Digital Solutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of GST authorities. The petitioner alleged that these actions, including potential coercive steps and arrest, were being conducted without following the procedure laid down in Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, and without serving a copy of the order on him. The petitioner sought a declaration that such actions were illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and prayed for a direction to the respondents to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 69 of the CGST Act before taking any action, including arrest, and to provide him with a copy of any such order within a reasonable time.

Key Issues

1. Whether the actions of the GST authorities in conducting actions under the CGST Act, 2017, and subjecting the petitioner to the threat of coercive actions and arrest, without following the procedure under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, and without serving a copy of the order on the petitioner, are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and in violation of principles settled by the Supreme Court? 2. Whether the respondents should be directed not to conduct any actions without following the procedure under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017, and without serving a copy of the order on the petitioner within a reasonable time thereafter to avail remedies? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the GST authorities were not adhering to the procedure under Section 69 of the CGST Act for arrest and were not serving orders, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Sunil Biyani. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare these actions illegal and to direct compliance with the statutory procedure. Respondents' Arguments: The respondent (Union of India) stated that there was no apprehension of authorities acting contrary to Section 69 of the CGST Act and assured that due adherence would be made to the provisions of Section 69 during proceedings.