An individual who is avoiding appearance before the authority without any just excuse even after a dozen summons cannot escape coercive action including arrest.
Section 69 and 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Arrest and Summons –- The contempt cases are filed by the DGGI. This Court vide common order dated 21.02.2019 disposed petitions with the direction to the petitioners that they shall appear before the department and, of course they shall not be arrested on the first day when they appear before them. It needs no reiteration that the department shall act fairly and his actions must demonstrate fairness in action.The counsel for the petitioner department submitted that in violation of the directions issued, the writ petitioners did not appear and have failed to submit necessary documents and tender other evidences. The counsel further submitted that from the directions, it appears that the writ Court formed an opinion on a conjoint reading of sections 69 and 70 that the Senior Intelligence Officer is not authorized to arrest an individual to whom he had issued summons on the first date of his appearance. The court observed that the Directorate has misread and misconstrued the observations of the order dated 21.02.2019. It is well-settled in law that any one intentionally avoiding the mandate in law is not entitled for any protection in law – but, there should be a finding on the issue.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner-Directorate can proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
An individual who is avoiding appearance before the authority without any just excuse even after a dozen summons cannot escape coercive action including arrest.
Section 69 and 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Arrest and Summons –- The contempt cases are filed by the DGGI. This Court vide common order dated 21.02.2019 disposed petitions with the direction to the petitioners that they shall appear before the department and, of course they shall not be arrested on the first day when they appear before them. It needs no reiteration that the department shall act fairly and his actions must demonstrate fairness in action.The counsel for the petitioner department submitted that in violation of the directions issued, the writ petitioners did not appear and have failed to submit necessary documents and tender other evidences. The counsel further submitted that from the directions, it appears that the writ Court formed an opinion on a conjoint reading of sections 69 and 70 that the Senior Intelligence Officer is not authorized to arrest an individual to whom he had issued summons on the first date of his appearance. The court observed that the Directorate has misread and misconstrued the observations of the order dated 21.02.2019. It is well-settled in law that any one intentionally avoiding the mandate in law is not entitled for any protection in law – but, there should be a finding on the issue.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner-Directorate can proceed in the matter in accordance with law.