2023 (1) TMI 1361 - HC - GST

Physically challenged tax consultant's petition against Section 41-A summons disposed considering investigation complexity

Vemula Yougander Versus Union of India

The Telangana HC disposed of a petition seeking mandamus to restrain authorities from issuing summons under Section 41-A Cr.P.C regarding irregular input ... Irregular availment of input tax credit based upon fake and fraudulent invoices - Seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus in the nature of restraint order to respondent No. 3 to not to interfere with the liberty and peaceful life of the petitioner and not to issue further summons under the provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C - HELD THAT:- No strong case is made out by the petitioner calling for interference to the summons issued as has been sought for. Nonetheless, from the materials placed, there appears to be documents which would reveal that the petitioner otherwise is a physically challenged person. Therefore, it would not be justified in the said circumstances expecting the petitioner to be subjected to interrogation on day-to-day basis which may cause great inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner. Considering the statement of the learned counsel for the Department that there are around 151 taxpayers who are said to have involved in availing fraudulent passing on input tax credits, the investigation may take some time. That of the 151 taxpayers, the petitioner being consultant of 122 tax payers, his presence for investigation also would be required in respect of each of the tax payers case is concerned. Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment include the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to restrain respondent No. 3 from interfering with their liberty and peaceful life by issuing further summons under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.Comprehensive details of the judgment for each issue involved:1. The petitioner, an Accountant, filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to prevent respondent No. 3 from interfering with their life and liberty by issuing further summons under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. The petitioner claimed no involvement in fraudulent activities related to input tax credit by companies they serve. They highlighted their physical disability, making it challenging to manipulate documents as alleged by the authorities. The petitioner expressed distress over repeated summons and delays in the investigation, causing inconvenience and agony due to their physical condition and the harassment faced. The Department opposed the petition, citing the petitioner's role as a consultant to numerous companies involved in passing input tax credit without the taxpayers' knowledge. Allegations were made against the petitioner, indicating their involvement in illegal operations.2. The Department argued that the petitioner's previous bail application was rejected, and the current writ petition was an attempt to suspend the summons under the guise of seeking anticipatory bail. The Department emphasized the necessity of the petitioner's presence for a thorough investigation into the alleged fraudulent activities related to input tax credit. Referring to judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar context, the Department stressed the importance of complying with legal procedures and the need for the petitioner's cooperation in the investigation.3. The court, considering the facts and legal principles, acknowledged the petitioner's physical disability and the ongoing investigation involving multiple taxpayers. To balance the need for investigation and the petitioner's condition, the court directed the respondent authorities to call the petitioner for investigation on specific days during office hours. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate fully with the investigation. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with directions for the petitioner's scheduled appearances and cooperation, taking into account the complexity of the case and the petitioner's physical challenges.The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the petitioner's claims, the Department's arguments, and the court's decision based on legal principles and precedents, ultimately aiming to balance the investigative needs with the petitioner's circumstances.