Facts of the Case

The appellant, The Kothamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ernakulam district, registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, filed this writ appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing its writ petition, WP(C) No.18592 of 2023, dated 26 September 2023. The dispute arose from summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act by the Intelligence Officer, State GST Department, Kanhangad, Kasaragod (Ext.P1), directing the appellant to furnish account details for various periods. The appellant sought to have the proceedings transferred to an office in Ernakulam citing difficulty in appearing at Kanhangad (Ext.P2), but a further summons (Ext.P3) was issued for appearance on 17 May 2023, to which the appellant again sought transfer instead of compliance (Ext.P4). The Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, had given the appellant three days to appear and produce documents; that period expired on 29 September 2023, and the appellant approached the Court again only in November 2023.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a person summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act can insist on transfer of the proceedings to an office of its own choosing instead of appearing before the officer who issued the summons.
  2. Whether the appellant's continued non-appearance, despite time granted by the Single Judge, warranted interference in appeal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The appellant, a co-operative bank located in Kothamangalam, Ernakulam district, argued it faced genuine difficulty travelling to Kanhangad, Kasaragod, to appear before the Intelligence Officer in response to the Section 70 summons.
  • It contended that the proceedings ought to be transferred to a GST office located within Ernakulam, closer to its own place of business, and made this request twice — in reply to Ext.P1 and again in reply to Ext.P3 — instead of complying with the summons as issued.
  • The appellant maintained that its approach to the Court, including the appeal, was a bona fide response to the department's failure to accommodate its request for transfer, not a deliberate attempt to avoid production of documents.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State GST Department, represented by its standing counsel, maintained that the appellant was legally bound to appear before the officer who had issued the Section 70 summons and could not unilaterally choose a different office for compliance.
  • The department pointed out that the appellant was given ample time — including the additional three days granted by the Single Judge — yet failed to appear even within that extended window, which lapsed on 29 September 2023, before the appellant approached the Court again only in November 2023.

Court Order/Findings

  • The Division Bench held that the appellant could not choose the GST office where it would appear and submit documents in response to summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act; it was legally bound to appear before the officer before whom it was asked to appear.
  • The appellant's failure to appear before the Intelligence Officer, despite the three days additionally granted by the Single Judge, was found to be deliberate.
  • The Court saw no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's judgment.
  • The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the dismissal of the underlying writ petition.

Important Clarification

  • A person or entity summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act must appear before the specific officer who issued the summons; it cannot unilaterally insist on transfer of the proceedings to a more convenient office as a precondition to compliance.
  • Repeated requests for transfer, made in place of appearance, are unlikely to be treated as a valid excuse for non-appearance, and courts may treat continued non-compliance — even after extended time is granted — as deliberate defiance warranting no equitable relief.
  • Genuine logistical difficulty should be raised through a request for accommodation (such as video conferencing or a nearby-office date), not as a substitute for appearing altogether.

Sections Involved

  • Section 70, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents, treated as a judicial proceeding.

Decision – In Favour of

Department. The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant was bound to comply with the Section 70 summons before the officer who issued it, with the appellant's non-appearance treated as deliberate.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • Case No.: WA No.2113 of 2023
  • CNR: Not available on record
  • Coram: Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
  • Decision Date: December 11, 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Writ appeal dismissed

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.