Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Monmohan Harlalka vs Additional Assistant Director
2022 Latest Caselaw 7799 Cal

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7799 Cal
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2022

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Monmohan Harlalka vs Additional Assistant Director on 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.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter