Page 171 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

2020 ] ANKIT BHUTANI v. UNION OF INDIA 73
upon apprehension only. In the facts of that case, the writ petitioner had claimed
that he was running a hotel and a Desi wine shop. He was issued summons un-
der Section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Superinten-
dent, office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax Com-
missionerate, Meerut, to appear in person before him on 10th May, 2018 at 12:45
hours to give evidence on such matters concerning the enquiry as he may be
asked and produce documents and record mentioned in the schedule for exami-
nation. In pursuance to the summons, the writ petitioner had not attended the
office of the Chief Commissioner. Rather, it was alleged that his wife went to the
office and requested for granting a month’s time as the petitioner was reported to
be out of station. In such circumstances, the Division Bench in Writ Tax No. 805
of 2018 (Shri Viklap Jain v. Union of India and 4 Others), was pleased to dispose of
that matter in the following manner :-
“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, though the entire petition
is based upon apprehension only, we dispose it of expecting the authorities
to adhere to the above settled principles of law in interrogating or putting
questions to the petitioner pursuant to the summons dated 8-5-2018 issued
to him.
Since the petitioner has not appeared before the Superintendent, Office of
the Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate,
Meerut now he is directed to present himself on 30th May, 2018 or on any
other date which may be informed to him by the aforesaid Officer on his
appearance on 30th May, 2018.
The petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner will coop-
erate with the enquiry.”
9. The judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, even though
taking note of three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - in our respectful
view - is not an authority for the proposition that a person against whom several
summonses have been issued for the purpose of enquiry conducted under Sec-
tion 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in respect of availment
of Input Tax Credit (I.T.C.), without receipt of any goods, can be shielded from
such enquiry by the writ Court in the manner as prayed for. Rather, in that mat-
ter, the Coordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition with a specific direction
that the writ petitioner will cooperate with the enquiry.
10. At this juncture, we wish to quote what Lord Morris said in British
Railways Board v. Herrington [1972 AC 877 = (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)], which
reads as follows :-
“There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as
though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remem-
bered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a partic-
ular case.”
11. In so far as this matter is concerned, the series of summons-
es/notices which have been issued, clearly reveal that the writ petitioner is not
interested in cooperating with the enquiry. Apart from a letter dated 24th Janu-
ary, 2020, written by the writ petitioner, addressed to the concerned Senior Intel-
ligence Officer, after almost four months from the date of issuance of the first
summons dated 26th September, 2019, there is nothing on record to show as to
how the writ petitioner has specifically responded to the summonses/notices
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  235