Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10591 (RAJ)

M/S KGR AND COMPANY v. UNION OF INDIA

CW/3625/2021 · 2025-04-28

Inderjeet Singh, Mukesh Rajpurohit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:17844-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3625/2021 M/s Kgr And Company, Shop No. 204, Agrasen Market Ke Piche, Mehandi Ka Chowk, Johari Bazar, Jaipur, Through Its Proprietor Sunil Jadhav S/o Shri Mahadev Jadhav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 12, Ekta Vihar, Govind Nagar- West, Jaipur 302002 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, (Jaipur Zone), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur 302005. 2. Superintendent (Anti Evasion), Cgst And Central Excise State Tax (Gst), Room No, 1.32 Anti-Evasion, Cgst Commissionerate, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur 302005 3. Superintendent (Anti Evasion), Cgst And Central Excise State Tax (Gst), First Floor, Anti - Evasion, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 28/04/2025 None present on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round. This appeal has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- [2025:RJ-JP:17844-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-3625/2021] “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction- (1) It may be held and declared and respondent No.2 & 3 have abused their authority by recklessly invoking powers under Section 70 as a means of harassment and oppression, in direct contravention of DGGI circular dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure-10). (2) It may be held and declared simultaneous invocation of jurisdiction by to officers of the same rank and position from the same Commissionerate on a seemingly same subject matter amounts to abuse of authority with the intent of harassing the assessee; (3) It may be held and declared that repetitive issuance of summons forcing the assessee to appear personally for tendering statements and providing documents/information, which information is otherwise available with Respondent authorities, amounts to infringement of petitioner’s fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (4) It may be declared that mere mentioning of nature of inquiry as ‘GST investigation’ in summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act is inadequte compliance of the principles of natural justice; (5) It may be declared that treating the assessee as defaulter and holding him liable to pay tax in the absence of passing of any order of adjudication is per-se illegal; (6) It may be declared that Respondent No. 2 & 3 have unleashed tax-terrorism on the Petitioner causing grave trauma and mental agony, thereby infringing petitioner’s fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; (7) Summons dated 25.02.2021 (Annexure 4) as well as 08.03.2021 (Annexure-9) issued by Respondent No.2 may be quashed; (8) Advisory dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure-8) issued by Respondent No.3 may be quashed; (9) The Respondent No. 1 may be directed to issue suitable directions against Respondent No. 3 regarding invocation powers under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST Act; (10) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed.” [2025:RJ-JP:17844-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-3625/2021] Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is premature as the same has been filed only against the issuance of summons to the petitioner. Heard counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. We have gone through the record and find that on many previous occasions counsel for the petitioner failed to appear before this court to argue the matter. Since, the writ petition has been filed only against the issuance of summons, therefore, in our considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/62