Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, FSM Education Pvt. Ltd., a school of music engaged in teaching music to school children and registered under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, received a communication dated 2 December 2021 from the Office of the Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West, requesting submission of certain documents within four days. The Petitioner submitted various documents. Subsequently, Respondent No.3 issued a summons on 15 December 2021 under Section 70 of the CGST Act to the Petitioner to appear on 16 December 2021 at 11:20 a.m., without any details of the inquiry. The Petitioner deputed its Accounts Manager, Mr. Piyush Patel, who was allegedly grilled and interrogated for about five hours from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., contrary to guidelines. Thereafter, on 23 December 2021, Respondent No.3 issued another summons to Ms. Tanuja Gomes, a Director of the Petitioner, to appear on 29 December 2021. The Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the summons and for directions to conduct inquiry without initiating summons unless extremely necessary and with due adherence to law. The Petitioner relied on FAQ 34 dated 15 December 2018 issued by the GST Department, which states that summons should be issued only as a last resort and details can be obtained by ordinary letters. The Court observed that the summons lacked details of the inquiry and were issued without following the guidelines. The Court held that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act must be issued only as a last resort and with proper reasons, not as a routine measure. The Court quashed the impugned summons dated 23 December 2021 issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes and directed the Respondents to follow the guidelines and issue summons only when extremely necessary and with due adherence to law. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Quashing of Summons - Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to quash summons issued to its Director under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 - Court held that summons must be issued only as a last resort and with proper reasons, not as a routine measure - Held that the impugned summons lacked details of inquiry and were issued without following departmental guidelines, hence liable to be quashed (Paras 3-10). B) Goods and Services Tax - Summons under Section 70 - Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 - Guidelines and FAQs - Petitioner relied on FAQ 34 dated 15 December 2018 - Court held that summons should not be issued routinely and details can be obtained by ordinary letters - Held that the respondents must follow the guidelines and issue summons only when extremely necessary (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summons issued to the Director of the Petitioner under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, without providing details of the inquiry and without following the guidelines, is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Court quashed the impugned summons dated 23 December 2021 issued to Ms. Tanuja Gomes and directed the Respondents to follow the guidelines and issue summons only when extremely necessary and with due adherence to law. The petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Summons under Section 70 of CGST Act must be issued only as a last resort
- with proper reasons and details of inquiry
- guidelines issued by the department must be followed
- FAQs dated 15 December 2018 clarify that summons should not be routine.
