Statutory summons power under GST upheld; short notice summons not quashed without proof of prejudice or impossibility.

Section 70 of the Rajasthan GST Act was upheld because the power to summon persons and require documents is circumscribed by objective necessity, must be exercised in the manner of civil-court summons, and is reinforced by the statutory deeming of a judicial proceeding. The constitutional challenge therefore failed. The challenge to the particular summons also failed because the notice identified the documents required, and a short time to appear did not by itself warrant interference absent shown prejudice or impossibility of compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 70 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was unconstitutional for conferring power on the proper officer to summon persons and require production of documents; (ii) Whether the summons issued to the petitioner was liable to be interfered with on the ground that it did not disclose sufficient particulars and granted an unreasonably short time to appear.

Issue (i): Whether Section 70 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was unconstitutional for conferring power on the proper officer to summon persons and require production of documents.

Analysis: The power under Section 70 is not unguided or uncanalised. It is limited by the requirement that the proper officer must consider the attendance necessary for giving evidence or producing documents, and the summons must be issued in the manner provided for civil courts under Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The deeming fiction in sub-section (2) further lends sanctity to the inquiry by treating it as a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Similar summoning provisions exist in other fiscal statutes, and the provision does not transgress constitutional limits or fundamental rights.

Conclusion: Section 70 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was upheld and the constitutional challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the summons issued to the petitioner was liable to be interfered with on the ground that it did not disclose sufficient particulars and granted an unreasonably short time to appear.

Analysis: The summons indicated the documents required to be produced. Even if a particular summons grants short time, the affected person may seek extension or approach the court if compliance is impossible. On the facts, the summons had already been issued earlier and the grievance did not justify interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summons was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on both the vires challenge and the challenge to the summons, and the impugned summons was not interfered with.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to summon persons in a fiscal inquiry is valid where it is circumscribed by objective necessity, procedural safeguards, and a civil-court-like mode of issuance and service, and a summons will not be quashed merely for short time unless prejudice or impossibility of compliance is shown.

---