Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Ankush Jain, challenged the summons issued by the Customs Department under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The summons required him to appear before the Customs authorities, provide evidence, and produce specified documents including tender statements, bank statements, and Income Tax Returns for the period from April 2017 to March 2022.

The petitioner contended that the Customs Department was conducting an inquiry relating to "Non-Physical Import," which according to him did not constitute goods covered under the Customs Act. He also submitted that similar documents had already been furnished pursuant to earlier summons and therefore issuance of fresh summons was unnecessary. Further, relying upon GST guidelines regarding issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, he argued that the summons should have disclosed whether he was being called as an accused, co-accused or witness.

He additionally expressed apprehension that he might be arrested after recording of his statement.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act can be challenged on the ground that the underlying inquiry relates to non-physical imports.
  2. Whether repeated summons seeking documents already supplied are illegal or arbitrary.
  3. Whether GST guidelines regarding issuance of summons under Section 70 are applicable to summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act.
  4. Whether apprehension of arrest is sufficient to challenge a valid summons under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The Customs Department lacked jurisdiction because the inquiry pertained to non-physical imports which were allegedly outside the scope of the Customs Act.
  • The petitioner had already furnished Income Tax Returns and other documents in response to earlier summons; therefore, repeated summons were unjustified.
  • Since Section 70 of the CGST Act is pari materia with Section 108 of the Customs Act, the GST guidelines requiring disclosure of whether the person summoned is an accused, co-accused or witness should equally apply.
  • There existed a genuine apprehension that upon appearance before the Customs authorities he would be arrested after recording his statement.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Section 108 of the Customs Act authorises a Gazetted Customs Officer to summon any person whose attendance is necessary during an inquiry.
  • The validity of summons does not depend upon whether customs duty is ultimately leviable on the subject matter of the inquiry.
  • The summons specifically identified the documents required and therefore could not be termed vague.
  • GST administrative guidelines do not govern proceedings under the Customs Act and are not legally enforceable.
  • Mere apprehension of arrest cannot invalidate a lawful summons.

Court Order / Findings

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act.

The Court held that:

  • Section 108 empowers Customs Officers to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary during an inquiry for giving evidence or producing documents.
  • The legality of a summons does not depend upon whether the goods or transactions ultimately attract customs duty. The inquiry itself is sufficient to invoke Section 108.
  • The question regarding taxability of non-physical imports is irrelevant while examining the validity of summons.
  • The summons clearly specified the documents required and therefore were not vague.
  • Even if certain documents had already been supplied earlier, the petitioner could either furnish them again or explain that they had already been submitted. No prejudice was caused by repeated requisition.
  • The guidelines issued under the GST law are not applicable to summons issued under the Customs Act. Moreover, such guidelines are administrative in nature and are not legally enforceable.
  • Since the summons sought evidence and production of documents, the petitioner was implicitly being treated as a witness and not as an accused.
  • Mere apprehension of arrest cannot be a ground for quashing summons. If such apprehension exists, the petitioner has independent legal remedies including seeking anticipatory bail.
  • Failure to comply with lawful summons may attract penal consequences under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • No legal right of the petitioner had been infringed nor was any prejudice established warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • Section 108 of the Customs Act grants wide powers to Customs Officers to summon any person during an inquiry irrespective of whether that person is an accused.
  • Validity of summons is independent of the eventual taxability or legality of the underlying transaction.
  • Administrative guidelines issued under the GST law do not automatically apply to proceedings under the Customs Act.
  • Repeated demand for documents does not invalidate summons where no prejudice is caused.
  • Apprehension of arrest alone is insufficient for quashing summons in writ jurisdiction.
  • Non-compliance with lawful summons may expose the person concerned to penal consequences under law.

Sections Involved

  • Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 – Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.
  • Sections 174 & 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (as applicable at the relevant time) – Consequences of non-compliance with lawful summons.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782890349_105compressed.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.