TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich he is examined or makes statements and to produce such documents as may be required. As held by the Apex Court in KIRIT SHRIMANKAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2014 (12) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT] , no cause of action arises merely for reason of a person being called upon to state the truth or to make statements and produce documents. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that the cause of action is based on the repeated summoning of the petitioner in spite of his illness, which gave rise to the reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will be forced to give statements against his will. There are no basis for such apprehension inasmuch as the date for appearance was changed by the 2nd res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r a direction to the 2nd respondent to refrain from detaining the petitioner beyond reasonable time and to permit the presence of a legal practitioner during questioning. 2. The dates and events, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows; Exhibit P1 summons was issued by the 2nd respondent, requiring the petitioner to appear in person on 6.11.2020. As the petitioner was not keeping well, he requested to extend the date for appearance by four days. On 6.11.2020, petitioner tested positive for Covid-19 and was admitted at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He was discharged on 18.11.2020. The 2nd respondent was informed about these developments, in spite of which, Exhibit P5 summons was issued, requiring the petitioner' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable period of time. 5. The learned ASG raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It was contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature since, mere issuance of summons under Section 50 of the Act does not give rise to any cause of action. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Kirit Shrimankar v. Union of India and Others [order dated 20.11.2014 in WP(Crl.). No.110/2013] and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28]. In Kirit Shrimankar, the petitioner approached the Apex Court after officials from the Customs Department conducted search in the residential premises of his former wife. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. The decision of the High Court of Delhi in Virbhadra Singh and Another v. Directorate of Enforcement and Another [2017 SCC Online Del 8930] was cited to contend that no person is entitled in law to evade the command of the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act on the ground that he may be prosecuted in future. Attention was drawn to the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pool Pandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise [(1992) 3 SCC 259] on the entitlement of a person summoned under the Customs Act to ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a non-cooperative attitude to the machineries of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of such company. The relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be expanded to favour exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer. Applying the 'just, fair and reasonable test' we hold that there is no merit in the stand of appellant before us. To drive home the limited scope of interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of action arises merely for reason of a person being called upon to state the truth or to make statements and produce documents. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause of action is based on the repeated summoning of the petitioner in spite of his illness, which gave rise to the reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will be forced to give statements against his will. I find no basis for such apprehension inasmuch as the date for appearance was changed by the 2nd respondent on three occasions, acceding to the request made by the petitioner. Having commenced an investigation or proceeding, the 2nd respondent cannot be expected to wait indefinitely to suit the petitioner's conven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
