Jharkhand HC quashes criminal proceedings against company and director for non compliance with CGST summons
Title: Satyendra Singh Kushwaha v The State of Jharkhand
Citation: Cr.M.P. No. 2454 of 2019
Dated on: 19.6.2019
Corum: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Facts of the case
In the case of Satyendra Singh Kushwah vs. State of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand High Court quashed criminal proceedings in the case. The central issue revolved around non-compliance with summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The petitioner, Director of M/s. SSK Devcon Private Limited, and the company itself filed petitions for the quashing of criminal proceedings. The complaint alleged non-payment of GST from January 2018 to November 2018, ignoring summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and violation of Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the summons, providing details of payments made. The authority concerned acknowledged the replies and granted time for further deposits. The total GST amount of Rs.5,60,52,391/- was eventually paid on 08.02.2019. No proceedings for tax determination or recovery were initiated, indicating no outstanding dues against the petitioners. The court highlighted that summon replies, entertained by the authority, evidenced compliance. It emphasized that continuing proceedings under Section 174 IPC would amount to an abuse of legal process, especially considering the prescribed penalties under the CGST Act.
Legal Provision
Section 70 of the central goods and service tax (CGST) Act, 2017 empowers the proper officer to summon any persons whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner as provided in CPC, 1908. In case of Satyendra Singh Kushwah v State of Jharkhand, the central issue revolved around non compliance with summons issued under section 70 of the CGST Act.
Section 174 of the IPC deals with nonattendance in obedience to an order form a public servant. It states that whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice order or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent as such public servant, to issue the same intentionally omits to attend at that place or time or departs shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which extends to five hundred rupees or with both.
In the Satyendra Singh Kushwaha v State of Jharkhand case, the complainant alleged non-payment of GST from Jan 2018 to November 2018, ignoring summons under section 70 of the CGST act, violation of section 174 of IPC.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The court noted that the petitioner had replied to the summons, providing details of payments made. The authority concerned acknowledged the replies and granted time for further deposits. The total GST amount of Rs.5,60,52,391/- was eventually paid on 08.02.2019. No proceedings for tax determination or recovery were initiated, indicating no outstanding dues against the petitioners. The court highlighted that summon replies, entertained by the authority, evidenced compliance. It emphasized that continuing proceedings under section 174 IPC would amount to abuse of legal process, especially considering the prescribed penalties under the CGST Act. and the HC of Jharkhand disposed off the petition.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Namitha Ramesh