Mohammed Imbrahim vs Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance)-37

Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Imbrahim vs Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance)-37 on 2 May, 2024

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC:16958
                                                      WP No. 12665 of 2024




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2024

                                            BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 12665 OF 2024 (T-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   MOHAMMED IBRAHIM,
                   PROPRIETOR OF M/S M.M.TRADERS,
                   S/O MR.JAVED IQBAL,
                   AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
                   PRESENTLY RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS,
                   NO.2279, 20TH WEST CROSS,
                   ASHOKA ROAD,
                   LASHKAR MOHALLA,
                   MYSURU - 570 001.
                   PREVIOUSLY AT NO.39,
                   BELVATHA GRAMA, MOMIN NAGAR,
                   MYSURU - 570 007.
                   GSTIN: 29AJZP144R1ZX.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by USHA N S        (BY SRI. SHREEHARI., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF           AND:
KARNATAKA

                   1.    COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
                         (VIGILANCE) - 37,
                         NO.305, 3RD FLOOR, A BLOCK,
                         VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA - 2
                         BUILDING, GST OFFICE, KORAMANGALA,
                         BENGALURU - 560 047.

                   2.    COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
                         ENFORCEMENT,
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC:16958
                                     WP No. 12665 of 2024




    SOUTH ZONE,
    BENGALURU,
    VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-2,
    B-BLOCK, ROOM NO.404,
    4TH FLOOR, KORAMANGALA,
    BENGALURU - 560 047.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA)

     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 OR
HIS COLLEAGUES, ASSOCIATES OR OTHER GST OFFICERS TO
NOT TAKE ANY COERCIVE ACTION AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 69 OR ANY
OTHER PROVISION OF THE KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICE
TAX ACT/CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017 IN
PURSUANCE TO ALLEGED VIOLATION PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 132(1)(i) OR ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THE
KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT/ CENTRAL GOODS
AND SERVICE TAX ACT, 2017, IN PURSUANCE TO THE
SUMMONS ISSUED ON 27/04/2024 BY THE R1, WHICH IS
ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE - F AND/OR AND ETC.,

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents not to arrest him pursuant to the summons being issued requiring him to appear in -3- NC: 2024:KHC:16958 WP No. 12665 of 2024 person before the respondents to produce documents mentioned therein.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the summons issued at Annexure-F is before this Court questioning the same, on the ground that he would participate in the proceedings and provide all the required documents as sought for at Annexure-F, however, the respondents should not initiate coercive steps including arrest of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 132(1)(i) or any other provisions of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

4. I have perused the summons issued at Annexure-F by respondent No.1.

5. The summons issued is explanatory requiring evidence of the petitioner and to produce the documents maintained by him during the course of business. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in the guise of issuance of the summons, the petitioner could be arrested for the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:16958 WP No. 12665 of 2024 offences stated herein above. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer reported in (2023) 152 taxmann.com522(SC) and the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4477/2024 disposed of on 27.02.2024, in support of his case.

6. Learned AGA for the respondents submits that the Annexure-F is only the summons issued requiring the attendance of the petitioner to produce certain documents and evidence to proceed further in accordance with law. He also submits the respondent would proceed by following principles of natural justice and provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce documents and evidences as sought for in the summons and so also the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if reasonable opportunity is given and the respondents follow principles of natural justice, he would be satisfied. -5-

NC: 2024:KHC:16958 WP No. 12665 of 2024

7. Accordingly, placing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit his pleadings, documents and necessary evidences with regard to the summons issued by the respondents and on his appearance before the respondents, the respondents shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing and permit presenting the documents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by complying the principles of natural justice.

Sd/-

JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4