Actions taken by department during enquiry need not necessarily be termed as harassment

Sridhar Vs Superintendent of GST (Madras High Court)

HC dismisses Petition for direction to Superintendent of GST to not to harass the petitioner

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the matter of M/s Sridhar v the Superintendent of GST [Crl. O.P. No.7736 of 2022 dated June 6, 2022] dismissed the petition alleging the harassment by the Superintendent of Goods and Services Tax.

Facts:
M/s Sridhar (“the Petitioner”) has filed an Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal procedure in order to direct the Superintendent of GST (“the Respondent”) not to harass him during the enquiry of the case. The Petitioner contented that he is forced to pay the tax of Rs.29 lakhs, whereas as per the Respondent, despite of several opportunity the Petitioner has not produced any documents to justify his case.

Issue:

• Whether the actions taken by the Respondent during the enquiry can be considered as harassment?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in [Crl. O.P. No.7736 of 2022 dated June 6,2022] held as under:

• Directed the Petitioner to corporate with the Respondent for enquiry.
• Stated that, the term harassment is so subjective which cannot be encapsulated in objective criterion.
• Held that, the Respondent shall issue notice for the appearance of the Petitioner for enquiry within two weeks and after enquiring the Petitioner, the Respondent may either register a complaint, if any cognizable offence is made out or close the complaint.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the sole respondent not to harass the petitioner during the enquiry in connection with the case in GST 33BDWPS3178K1ZP of Kalki Traders.

2. Heard Mr. R.N .Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under the production of summons, the petitioner is forced to give an undertaking to pay the tax of a sum of Rs.29 lakhs, whereas the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that despite several opportunities were given, the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his case.

4. The term harassment is so subjective which cannot be encapsulated in objective criterion. The petitioner having given a complaint is bound to cooperate with the Police for enquiry. Admittedly, the enquiry is pending. Without cooperating with the Police, they cannot seek such a blanket direction.

5. In such a view of the matter, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is rejected. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The Police shall issue notice, within two weeks, from today, for causing the appearance of the petitioner, for enquiry and after enquiring the petitioner, the Police may either register a complaint, if any cognisable offence is made out or close the complaint.

*****

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)