GST Trader’s “Stop the Harassment” Plea Dismissed — Court Says: Cooperate First

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Sridhar vs. The Superintendent of GST, O/o The Deputy Commissioner of GST, Cuddalore

Case No.: Crl. O.P. No. 7736 of 2022

Court Name: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Key Takeaways

1. "Harassment" is too vague a term to be used as a legal ground to stop a legitimate government enquiry. The court noted that harassment is subjective and cannot be defined by an objective standard.

2. Receiving a summons creates a duty to cooperate. Once a person receives a summons from a GST authority, they are legally obligated to appear and cooperate with the enquiry.

3. You can’t seek a blanket protection order without cooperating first. The court made it clear that a petitioner cannot ask for sweeping directions to stop an enquiry while simultaneously refusing to participate in it.

4. The order was later corrected — the original order mistakenly used the word “Police” instead of “respondent/Superintendent GST.” This was rectified through a subsequent correction order dated 05.07.2022.

5. The GST authority was directed to proceed in accordance with law — meaning they can register a complaint if a cognisable offence is found, or close the matter if not.

Issue

Can a person under GST enquiry approach the High Court to get a blanket direction preventing the GST authority from “harassing” them, while the enquiry is still ongoing?

The court’s answer: No.

Facts

• Sridhar is a person connected to a GST-registered business called Kalki Traders, with GST number 33BDWPS3178K1ZP, based in Cuddalore.

• The Superintendent of GST (under the Deputy Commissioner of GST, Cuddalore) had initiated an enquiry against Sridhar in connection with this business.

• During this enquiry, Sridhar claimed that under the production of summons, he was being forced to give an undertaking to pay ₹29 lakhs in tax — something he felt was coercive and amounted to harassment.

• Feeling pressured, Sridhar filed a Criminal Original Petition (Crl. O.P.) before the Madras High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), asking the court to direct the GST authority not to harass him during the enquiry.

• The GST authority’s side (Special Public Prosecutor) countered that despite several opportunities, Sridhar had not produced any documents to support his case.

• The court heard both sides and dismissed the petition on 23rd June 2022.

• Later, it was noticed that the original order mistakenly referred to “Police” instead of the “respondent/Superintendent GST.” The court corrected this error and issued a fresh corrected order on 05.07.2022.

Arguments

🧑‍💼Petitioner’s Side (Sridhar):

• Sridhar’s lawyer, Mr. R.N. Amarnath, argued that his client was being coerced under the summons process to give an undertaking to pay ₹29 lakhs in tax.
• The implication was that this pressure amounted to harassment, and the court should step in to protect him from such conduct during the enquiry.

Respondent’s Side (GST Authority):

• The Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. N.P. Kumar, argued that the GST authority had given Sridhar multiple opportunities to present his case and supporting documents.
• Despite these chances, Sridhar failed to produce any documents to back up his claims.
• The authority was simply doing its job — conducting a legitimate enquiry.

Key Legal Precedents

The judgment in this case is relatively brief and does not cite any specific prior case law or judicial precedents. However, it does reference the following legal provision:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This is the provision under which the petition was filed. Section 482 gives the High Court inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. Sridhar invoked this provision to seek protection from alleged harassment.

The court, however, did not find it appropriate to exercise these inherent powers in this situation, given that the enquiry was legitimately ongoing and the petitioner was not cooperating.

Judgment

The GST Authority (Respondent) effectively won — the petition filed by Sridhar was dismissed.

The Court’s Reasoning:

The court gave two key reasons for dismissing the petition:

1. "Harassment" is too subjective — The court observed that the concept of harassment is highly subjective and cannot be pinned down to an objective standard. You can’t just say “I’m being harassed” and expect the court to halt a government enquiry.

2. Duty to cooperate — Once a person receives a summons, they are bound to cooperate with the enquiry. Sridhar had not been cooperating, and without cooperation, he couldn’t seek a blanket direction from the court.

Orders Made by the Court:

The court directed the following (as corrected in the final order dated 05.07.2022):

• The respondent (Superintendent of GST) shall issue a notice within two weeks to cause the appearance of Sridhar for enquiry.
• After enquiring Sridhar, the authority may proceed further in accordance with law.
• The Registry was directed to carry out necessary corrections in the order and issue a fresh order copy on 08.07.2022.

FAQs

Q1: Why did Sridhar file this petition?

Sridhar felt that the GST authority was harassing him during the enquiry — specifically, he claimed he was being forced to give an undertaking to pay ₹29 lakhs in tax under the summons process. He wanted the court to stop this.

Q2: What is Section 482 Cr.P.C., and why was it used here?

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. gives the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the legal process or to secure justice. Sridhar used this provision to approach the High Court directly, hoping the court would intervene and protect him from alleged harassment.

Q3: Why did the court dismiss the petition?

The court dismissed it for two main reasons: (a) “harassment” is too vague and subjective to justify stopping a legitimate enquiry, and (b) Sridhar himself was not cooperating with the enquiry, so he couldn’t ask for protection from it.

Q4: What happens next for Sridhar?

The GST authority was directed to issue a fresh notice to Sridhar within two weeks, call him for enquiry, and then proceed in accordance with law — which could mean registering a complaint if an offence is found, or closing the matter.

Q5: Why was the order corrected later?

The original order dated 23.06.2022 mistakenly used the word “Police” in paragraphs 4 and 5, when it should have said “respondent/Superintendent GST.” This was a clerical error that was corrected through a subsequent order on 05.07.2022.

Q6: What is the broader lesson from this case?

The key lesson is that receiving a government summons creates a legal obligation to cooperate. You cannot approach the court for protection from an enquiry while refusing to participate in it. Courts will not grant blanket orders to stop legitimate government investigations.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the sole respondent not to harass the petitioner during the enquiry in connection with the case in GST 33BDWPS3178K1ZP of Kalki Traders.

2. Heard Mr.R.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under

the production of summons, the petitioner is forced to give an undertaking to the tax of a sum of Rs.29 lakhs, whereas the learned Special Public

Prosecutor submitted that despite several opportunities were given, the

petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his case.

4. The term harassment is so subjective which cannot be encapsulated in

objective criterion. The petitioner having given a complaint is bound to

cooperate with the Police for enquiry. Admittedly, the enquiry is pending.

Without cooperating with the Police, they cannot seek such a blanket direction.

5. In such a view of the matter, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is

rejected. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The Police shall issue notice, within two weeks, from today, for causing the appearance of the petitioner, for enquiry and after enquiring the petitioner, the Police may either register a complaint, if any cognisable offence is made out or close the complaint.

23/6/2022

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J

The matter is listed to under the caption “for being mentioned” at the

instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner had filed this petition seeking to direct the respondent/the

Superintendent of GST not to harass the petitioner during enquiry in connection with the case in GST 33BDWPS3178K1ZP of Kalki Traders and this Court by order 23.06.2022 dismissed the same whereas, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order, it is inadvertently mentioned as “Police” instead of “respondent/the Superintendent GST”. Hence, he seeks for a appropriate orders.

3. In view of the above, the paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order in

Crl.O.P.No.7736 of 2022 dated 23.06.2022, shall be read as follows;

4. The term harassment is so subjective which

cannot be encapsulated in objective criterion. The

petitioner having received summons from the

respondent, is bound to cooperate for enquiry.

Admittedly, the enquiry is pending. Without cooperating

with the respondent, they cannot seek such a blanket

direction.

N. SATHISH KUMAR,J

5. In such a view of the matter, the prayer sought

for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, this

Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The respondent

shall issue notice, within two weeks, from today, for

causing the appearance of the petitioner, for enquiry

and after enquiring the petitioner, the authority may

proceed further in accordance with law.

05.07.2022

NOTE: Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the order and issue a fresh order copy on 08.07.2022.