Case Law Details
Nitesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs Superintendent of Central Tax (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court heard a writ petition challenging a summons dated 08.04.2026 issued by the GST authorities requiring the petitioner’s physical appearance in connection with an enquiry against Radha Raman Industries. The summons directed the petitioner to appear before the authority concerned, give oral evidence, and produce relevant documents in his possession.
The petitioner sought withdrawal of the summons and requested extension of time for appearance on the ground that he had suffered a fracture in his leg and was medically unable to appear physically before the authorities. It was submitted that after receiving the summons, the petitioner had repeatedly approached the authorities through representations seeking adjournment of the enquiry, but those requests had not been considered.
The respondent authorities opposed the petition and submitted that summons had already been issued on three separate occasions. According to the respondents, the petitioner had failed to comply with the summons and had refused to appear before the authority concerned.
The respondents relied upon the judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vs. M.M. Exports reported in 2007 (212) ELT 165 (S.C.), contending that interference by the High Court at the stage of summons or show cause notice is limited and permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
After hearing the parties, the Calcutta High Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to obtain instructions regarding whether the petitioner would be able to appear before the authority after 15 days. The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on 14.05.2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today, is taken on record.
2. In the instant case, the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the impugned summons dated 8.4.2026 issued by the respondent no.1, requiring his physical appearance for the purpose of an enquiry against one Radha Raman Industries and directing him to give oral evidence and produce all documents in his possession.
3. The petitioner seeks extension of time for holding the enquiry before the authority concerned until his recovery, since he has already suffered a fracture in his leg and is not in a position to appear physically before the authority concerned.
4. The petitioner, upon receiving the said summons, made representations before the authority concerned on various occasions seeking adjournments of the date of enquiry, but the same remain unheeded.
5. The petitioner submits that from time to time he has made several representations seeking adjournment of the enquiry, but the same have not been considered.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent authorities vehemently opposes the same and submits that summons have been issued on three occasions. The petitioner has refused to appear and has not complied with terms of the summons.
7. In the context, learned counsel appearing for the the respondent authorities relies upon a judgement of this Court reported in (2007(212) ELT 165 (S.C.) (Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta –vs-M.M. Exports). Wherein it has been held that the power of the High Court to interfere at the stage of issuance of summons or show cause notice is limited and may be exercised only in exceptional cases.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to obtain instructions from the petitioner as to whether he will be in a position to appear before the authority concerned after 15 days.
9. Let this matter appear for further hearing on 14.05.2026.
Author Bio
