2019 (12) TMI 1505 - HC - Indian Laws

Court denies mandamus request for single authority in exports; multiple authorities can act. Directions issued to provide summons details.

DINESH KUMAR GOYAL Versus DIR. GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE

The court denied the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to have only one authority proceed against them for exports. The court held that ... Action against the petitioner with regard to the exports that have been undertaken by the petitioner, by three respondent authorities - HELD THAT:- Different authorities can proceed with respect to the same transaction if the liabilities arising from one transaction are in respect of different legislations under which the authorities operate. There is no bar and/or impediment in doing so - the prayer of the petitioner with regard to direction upon only one authority to proceed against the petitioner is prima facie not valid. The respondents should be allowed to bring on record the factual matrix with regard to the summons having been issued upon the petitioner and the steps the authorities have taken - The matter to appear in the list after exchange of affidavits. Issues:1. Prayer for a writ of mandamus to resist coercive measures against the petitioner and to have only one authority proceed against the petitioner for exports.2. Petitioner avoiding summons issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Customs Authorities.3. Whether different authorities can proceed against the petitioner for the same transaction under different legislations.4. Validity of directing only one authority to proceed against the petitioner.5. Decision on passing an interim order.6. Direction for respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks.Analysis:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent coercive measures and requested that only one authority handle the proceedings related to exports. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Customs Authorities stated that the petitioner had been evading their summons. The court opined that different authorities could act on the same transaction under various legislations they operate. Consequently, the request for a single authority to proceed against the petitioner was deemed invalid. The court directed the respondents to present the factual details of issued summons and actions taken. No interim order was issued, and the respondents were instructed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within three weeks, with a week provided for any replies. The court kept the question of the writ petition's maintainability open for future consideration.