Page 172 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

74 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
dated 26th September, 2019, 27th September, 2019, 1st October, 2019, 7th Octo-
ber, 2019, 15th October, 2019 and 19th November, 2019.
12. We may also take notice of the views expressed by the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise [1992 (60) E.L.T. 24
(S.C.)]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court - in that case - was considering a situation as
to whether the petitioners were entitled to the presence of their lawyers when
they were being questioned during investigation under the provisions of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. There was a dif-
ference of opinion between the High Courts on this issue. The Supreme Court -
in its judgment - has made certain observations while considering as to whether
Article 21 is violated if a person is called away from his own house and ques-
tioned in that atmosphere of the Customs office without the assistance of his
lawyers or his friends. In this context, the following observations of the Supreme
Court would be worthwhile to be noticed and quoted :-
“It is true that large majority of persons connected with illegal trade and
evasion of taxes and duties are in a position to afford luxuries on lavish
scale of which an honest ordinary citizen of this country cannot dream of
and they are surrounded by persons similarly involved either directly or
indirectly in such pursuits……. The purpose of the enquiry under the Cus-
toms Act and the other similar statutes (emphasis supplied by this Court)
will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons in possession of
useful information for the departments are allowed to prevail. For achiev-
ing the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the
view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the
company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a
non-cooperative attitude to the machineries of law, there cannot be any le-
gitimate objection in depriving them of such company. The relevant provi-
sions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit
they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be “expanded” to
favour exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer.
Applying the ‘just, fair and reasonable test’ we hold that there in no merit
in the stand of appellant before us.”
13. As observed earlier, the facts of the instant case do not qualify for
use of discretion by the writ Court in order to grant the writ petitioner such re-
liefs as prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and
stands dismissed accordingly.
14. Just after pronouncement of this judgment, the Learned Advocate
representing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appears and submits that his clients,
namely, the Additional Director General Meerut Zonal Unit, Directorate General
of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence, Ghaziabad Regional Unit, Ghaziabad and
the Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intel-
ligence, have not even been served with a copy of the writ petition. We only wish
to observe that the writ petitioner ought to have approached the writ Court after
serving all the respondents instead of serving only Respondent No. 1, being rep-
resented by Shri Anant Kumar Tiwari.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  236