Arrest of Assessee Despite Court Summons May Amount to Contempt of Court

Issue: Whether the arrest of an assessee, despite the issuance of summons for their appearance before the court, amounts to contempt of court.

Facts:

Summons were issued to the assessee by a revenue officer for recording a statement.
These summons were served after a court hearing.
Despite the summons, the assessee was arrested.

Decision:

The court held that the arrest of the assessee, despite the summons for their appearance, could prima facie be considered an interference with the administration of justice and might amount to contempt of court.
The court issued a notice to the revenue officer to show cause why contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against them.

Key Takeaways:

This case highlights the court’s power to protect its processes and ensure respect for its authority.
Arresting an individual who has been summoned by the court can be seen as an attempt to obstruct or interfere with the court’s proceedings.
Such actions may be considered contempt of court, leading to penalties against the responsible parties.
This decision emphasizes the importance of respecting court orders and summons and ensuring that actions taken by authorities do not undermine the administration of justice.

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Mishal J Shah HUF

State of Maharashtra

M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ.

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.38480 OF 2024

DECEMBER 20, 2024

Prasannan Namboodiri (Through V.C.), Ms. Pratibha Namboodiri, Ms. Tejal Darekar, Rishabh Sinha, Ms. Pallavi Dabak and P.S. Potkar, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP and Chandar Kamble, Asstt. Commissioner of State Tax for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Yesterday, after this matter was argued, at the request of Ms. Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents-State, of which request was made on the instructions of Mr. Chandar Kamble, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (D-113), who was yesterday present in the Court, we adjourned the matter to today.

3. Today, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner Mishal J Shah has been placed under arrest. This is despite the fact that by communication dated 19 December 2024, Mr. Chandar Kamble, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, had issued a summons to the Petitioner Mishal Jaswant Shah to remain present for recording his statement at 30 December 2024 at 11.00 am. This summons was served upon the Petitioner at 6.00 pm on 19 December 2024 i.e. after the hearing before this Court.

4. From the Arrest Memo dated 20 December 2024, which is placed before us, it is apparent that this Arrest Memo is signed again by Mr. Chandar T Kamble, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The Arrest Memo shows that the authorisation for this arrest was obtained on 20 December 2024 i.e. today itself and the Petitioner Mishal J Shah was arrested at 7.55 am today itself.

5. At least prima facie, we think that this amounts to interference with the administration of justice and consequently, might amount to a Contempt of Court. Yesterday, the matter was argued. Mr. Chandar Kamble was present in the Court at the time of arguments. Based on his understanding of the proceedings, it is possible that this action was taken.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this action was taken to intimidate and penalise the Petitioner for having approached to this Court. At this stage, we refrain from making any further observations because we are issuing a notice to Mr. Chandar Kamble to show cause why we should not initiate any action against him under the Contempt of Courts Act.

7. Mr. Chandar Kamble is present in the Court and accepts such notice. We direct that if Mr. Chandar Kamble so desirres, he may file his reply by 15 January 2025.

8. At this stage, Mr. Chandar Kamble, through Ms. Chavan, states that this entire action was as per the authorisation of Ms Prerna Deshbhratar, the Joint Commissioner State Tax, Investigation – A, Mumbai. Ms. Chavan states that this officer is the 3rd Respondent in this Petition. Ms. Chavan, based on instructions from Mr. Chandar Kamble, who is present in Court, now states that he had informed Ms. Prerna Deshbhratar (Respondent No.3) of yesterday’s hearing and even after such information being given to her, she authorized the arrest of Mishal J Shah.

9. Accordingly, based on the statement made by Mr. Chandar Kamble, we issue notice to Ms. Prerna Deshbhratar (Respondent No.3) to also show cause as to why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against her. She should also file her reply in this matter by 15 January 2025.

10. Ms. Chavan, based on instructions from Mr. Chandar Kamble, states that Respondent No.3 came to the office before 8.00 am today and issued this authorisation. Ms. Chavan states that Mr. Chandar Kamble was also there in the office when the authorisation was issued and the arrest was made.

11. In so far as main Petition is concerned, we post it on 06 January 2025. Before that date, the Commissioner should consider and dispose of the Petitioner’s objections/representation dated 11 December 2024 made in Form GST DRC-22A under Rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules. For this, the Commissioner, must give a hearing to the Petitioner and pass a speaking order. In this case, we direct Respondent No.2 to decide these objections/representation.

12. List this matter on 06 January 2025.