It is for the Investigating Officer to decide who should be called for investigation - High Court is not inclined to interfere with the summons issued
A summons dated 12/11/2013 was issued by the Dy. Director, DRI, Mumbai to the CFO of the company to appear in person and also give evidence and produce documents.
In response to the said summons, the CFO addressed a letter on 14/11/2013 to the Deputy Director pointing out that petitioner has joined the company in 2006 but the transactions in question pertain to FY 2001-02 for which the petitioner would not be in a position to give any evidence and he is no way connected with these matters; that he is not conversant with any indirect tax matters of the company or its associated companies and that all matters pertaining to the customs are being handled by the Indirect Tax Manager.
The DD wrote back on 18/11/2013 informing that the Indirect Tax Manager is not coming out with the details and is not cooperating with the investigation and hence the summons issued to the CFO cannot be withdrawn.
Another summons came knocking on 20/11/2013 and this too was responded by the CFO with another letter on 25/11/2013 reiterating the contents of his earlier letter and also pointing out that the Indirect Tax Manager had been authorized by a Power of Attorney executed by the company to attend to the customs enquiries.
Fearing the worst, the CFO challenged the summons before the Bombay High Court in a Writ Petition and also placed before the Bench a Medical Certificate indicating that the petitioner is suffering from Cancer and is undergoing radiotherapy treatment and if he has to appear before the Customs officer, he would be made to wait in their office for hours together and which would imperil his health. And so, the summons should be quashed.
The High Court observed -
+ As per the settled legal position, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation. It is for the Investigating Officer to decide who should be called for investigation.
+ In case the Dy. Director is of the view that the petitioner's presence is necessary for making enquiries then it is open to the DD to summon the petitioner. However, having regard to the petitioner's health, it is hoped that the petitioner would not be made to unduly wait after he makes himself available for investigation by the Dy. Director.
The WP was disposed of.