Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7799 Cal
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2022
Item no. 08
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam
And
The Hon'ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
MAT 1516 of 2022
with
IA No.: CAN 1 of 2022
Monmohan Harlalka
vs.
Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence &
Ors.
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sandip Choraria
Mr. Rajarshi Chatterjee
Mr. Sukalpa Seal
For the Respondents No.1 : Mr. K.K. Maity
For the Respondent no.5 : Mr. T.M. Siddiqui
Mr. D. Ghosh
Heard on : 24.11.2022
Judgment on : 24.11.2022
T.S. Sivagnanam J.:
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated
24th August, 2022 passed in WPA No.18077 of 2022. The writ
petition was filed challenging the action initiated by the respondent
department, namely, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, in
repeatedly summoning the appellant for the very same reasons. As
could be seen from the material papers the first summon was
issued to the appellant on 21.06.2021 directing the appellant to
appear before the authority on 25.06.2021 and to produce
documents relevant for the investigation and given oral and written
statements before the authority. The appellant complied with the
summon and appeared before the authority. It is stated that
statement was also recorded. Thereafter, nothing had happened
and another summon was issued on 20.06.2022 directing the
appellant to appear on 21.06.2022 for the same reasons. The
appellant sought for an adjournment by sending an email to the
Department. Thereafter, another summon was issued on
24.06.2022 directing the appellant to appear on 25.06.2022, for
which the appellant could not appear. This was followed by the
fourth summon dated 27.06.2022 directing the appellant to appear
on 04.07.2022. After the receipt of the said summon the appellant
had given a representation on 04.07.2022 stating that in the year
2021 itself he has received summon and he has appeared before
the authority and also given his written submission and thus is
ready to give any further clarification required and that the
summons cannot be issued without specifying as to for what
reasons the appellant is being summoned. According to the
appellant, such multiple summons amounts to harassment.
We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents on
the above submissions.
As could be seen from the material papers, the appellant had
responded to the first summon and written submission has been
submitted. As such, it is well open to the authority to call upon
the appellant to appear for further hearing in order to obtain
certain details, which would emanate from the written submission
or from any fresh material which the Department may be in
possession thereof. Therefore, the issuance of multiple summons
for the same reason is not appreciated.
For the above reasons, the appeal stands allowed and the
order passed in the writ petition stands set aside. Consequently,
the writ petition stands disposed of by directing the concerned
authority to issue a notice to the appellant clearly stating as to for
what purpose he is required to appear before the authority after
having given written statement by appearing on 25.06.2021. If
such notice is issued, the appellant shall appear before the
authority and give additional information and cooperate with the
authority.
Consequently, the connected application is disposed of.
There shall be, however, no order as to costs.
(T. S. Sivagnanam, J.)
(Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)
RP/Amitava (AR. CT.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!