Page 170 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

72 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
3. Using the above facts and relying upon a judgment and order ren-
dered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 25th May, 2018, in Writ Tax No.
805 of 2018 (Shri Viklap Jain v. Union of India and 4 others), the writ petitioner has
approached this Court praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :-
“(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, com-
manding the Respondent No. 3 to finalize the enquiry proceeding, initiated
under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and not to
take any coercive action against the petitioner before holding him guilty in
enquiry proceeding, particularly when the he has deposited Rs. 2 crore (sic)
on 31-10-2019, before even quantifying his tax liability.
(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus command-
ing the Respondent No. 3 to treat the petitioner’s presence or appearance
through his lawyer/representatives with all relevant documents as re-
quired and to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing any
final order/quantifying the tax liability.”
4. The question here is whether the discretionary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be availed by the writ
petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the instant case?
5. A bare perusal of one of the summonses annexed to the writ petition,
being summons dated 26th September, 2019, reveals that the same is for the pur-
pose of enquiry in respect of availment of Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.), without re-
ceipt of any goods under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017.
6. It is the admitted position that, till date, the writ petitioner, has not
appeared before the concerned Senior Intelligence Officer in response to any of
the summonses issued from time to time. Section 70 of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 reads as follows :-
“70. Power to summon person to give evidence and produce documents.
- (1) the proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any
person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or
to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same man-
ner, as provided in the case of Civil Court under the provisions of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(2) Every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be
a “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
7. At least five summonses have been issued for the purpose of such
enquiry. A discretionary relief to a petitioner can be granted by the writ Court in
exercise of its extraordinary high prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India only if his/her bona fides are not suspect. The reliefs which
the writ petitioner is essentially seeking - if granted - would tantamount to grant-
ing him immunity from arrest even though the facts of the case clearly reveal
that, till date, he has not even appeared once before the concerned Senior Intelli-
gence Officer.
8. So far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is con-
cerned, the facts of that case are totally different. Even otherwise, while issuing
directions, the Court took note of the fact that the entire writ petition was based

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  234