Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Summary: The Gujarat High Court considered two Special Criminal Applications filed by Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer and another petitioner, who apprehended coercive action following summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, made applicable to service tax through Section 83 of the Finance Act, and Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners expressed their willingness to cooperate with the authorities and produce the evidence required for determining the firm’s liability. However, they sought protection against arrest or other coercive measures before the adjudicatory process was completed. Read SC Judgment in this case: Supreme Court Sets Aside Gujarat HC Order Restricting GST Arrest Powers
In Special Criminal Application No. 11010 of 2018, the petitioner requested that no coercive action be taken until the firm’s liability was adjudicated. In the connected application, the petitioner additionally sought consolidation and transfer of the summons proceedings to the appropriate authority at Gondal, District Rajkot. The State submitted that the petitioners should appear in response to the summons and that there was no reason for apprehension merely because summons had been issued. Counsel for the petitioners maintained that persons had been arrested in a similar matter without final adjudication, giving rise to their concern.
Justice Sonia Gokani, considering the petitioners’ expressed willingness to participate in the adjudicatory process, directed them to represent their case before the concerned authority. The authority was directed to complete the process within eight weeks. If further apprehension arose after adjudication and the petitioners were not ready to fulfil their obligations, they could be given an additional two weeks to take necessary steps. The petitioners were directed to appear on or before 11 January 2019 before the concerned police station. Both applications were accordingly disposed of. The order did not finally determine the firm’s tax liability or grant unconditional immunity from arrest. This High Court order was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat Etc. Vs Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. Etc. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1043).
FULL TEXT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Petitioners are before this Court, showing willingness to be assisted by the authority concerned. However they are apprehensive of coercive action against them.
2. Petitioners seeking following reliefs in both the matters i.e. Special Criminal Application No.11010 of 2018 as well as Special Criminal Application No.11076 of 2018:
Special Criminal Application No.11010 of 2018
“9. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased:
(a) To allow this petition;
(b) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing that no coercive action be taken against the present petitioner till the adjudication with regard to the liability of the firms involving the present petitioner is made and pass all other consequential orders in that regard;
(c) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, to direct the concerned authorities not to take coercive action against the present petitioner pursuant to the summons at Annexure-A;
(d) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.”
Special Criminal Application No.11076 of 2018 :
“8. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased:
(a) To allow this petition;
(b) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction consolidating and transferring the inquiry / proceeding of summons at Annexure-A to the appropriate authority situated at Gondal / District Rajkot and pass all other consequential orders in that regard;
(c) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the concerned authority not to take coercive action against the present petitioner pursuant to the summons at Annexure-A;
(d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, to direct the concerned authorities not to take coercive action against the present petitioner pursuant to the summons at Annexure-A;
(e) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court.
3. Petitioners have preferred the applications being apprehensive of the arrest on account of summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act has made applicable to the service tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act and Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax, Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”).
4. It is urged that petitioners are ready to adduce all possible evidence, which require adjudication with regard to the liability of the Firm. However, in the meantime, they may not be apprehended till their liabilities are determined by the authority concerned.
5. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State submits that since the summons are issued, there should be no apprehension on the part of the petitioners. They should present themselves to answer to the said summons.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Popat appearing for the petitioners submits that in a similar case, the authority without finally adjudicating the issues, had arrested persons, and therefore, there is apprehension in the mind of the petitioners.
7. Considering the voluntary nature of pleadings where the petitioners are desirous of getting themselves assisted by the adjudicatory process, Let them represent their case before the concerned authority. The authority concerned shall complete the same in 8 weeks’ time and if there is a need for any apprehension after once the adjudicatory process is completed, if they are not ready to fulfill their obligation, they may be given an opportunity of two more weeks for taking necessary steps. Petitioners shall appear on or before 11/01/2019 before the concerned Police Station.
In view of the above, the present applications stand disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
