GST investigative summons cannot be blocked by mandamus, but limited appearance relief may be granted for hardship.

A writ of mandamus cannot ordinarily be used to block GST investigative summons or otherwise restrain the exercise of statutory powers, so a blanket bar on summons was declined. At the same time, where the person summoned was physically challenged and repeated daily appearance would cause hardship, the Court allowed limited accommodation by regulating attendance. The petitioner was directed to appear only on every Monday and Friday during office hours and to cooperate with the investigation. The decision reflects a balance between preserving GST enforcement powers and providing procedural relief where justified by the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ of mandamus could be issued restraining issuance or enforcement of summons in an investigation under the goods and services tax law, and (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to a restricted schedule for appearance in view of his physical condition and the ongoing investigation.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued restraining issuance or enforcement of summons in an investigation under the goods and services tax law.

Analysis: The investigation concerned alleged fraudulent passing on of input tax credit under the GST framework. In light of the settled distinction between a petition for anticipatory bail and a writ seeking protection from arrest or investigation, and the principle that a mandamus cannot be used to prevent the performance of statutory functions, the blanket restraint sought against summons was not warranted. The Court also noted that such interference is justified only in exceptional cases.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a blanket restraint against the summons or investigation.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a restricted schedule for appearance in view of his physical condition and the ongoing investigation.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the petitioner was physically challenged and that repeated day-to-day questioning would cause inconvenience and hardship. At the same time, the investigation involved numerous taxpayers and required the petitioner's presence in several connected matters, so a balanced arrangement was necessary to facilitate inquiry without undue hardship.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted limited relief by directing appearance only on every Monday and Friday during office hours, with full cooperation in the investigation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by refusing a general restraint on summons while granting a limited accommodation regulating the petitioner's appearance for investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In an investigation under the GST law, a writ of mandamus cannot be used to obstruct the discharge of statutory investigative powers, though the Court may fashion limited procedural relief where the facts justify accommodation without defeating the investigation.

---