FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT

This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.18592/2023 dated 26^th September 2023.

2. The appellant writ petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, directing the appellant to furnish the details of accounts for various periods. The appellant society is located at Kothamangalam in Ernakulam. The appellant gave Ext.P2 representation to the 1^st respondent expressing its difficulty in appearing before him at Kanhangad and requesting permission to transfer the case to any other office at Ernakulam. Again, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act to the appellant, asking him to appear before him on 17/5/2023. To the said summons also, the appellant gave Ext.P4 reply expressing his inability to appear before him on 17/5/2023 and requesting to transfer the case to Ernakulam. Since there was no positive reply, the appellant approached this Court challenging Exts.P1 and P3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after hearing both sides. The appellant is before us challenging the said judgment.

3. We have heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.P.R.Sreejith, the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The appellant was given sufficient time to appear before the 1st respondent, but he did not care to appear. The learned Single Judge gave three days’ time to the appellant to appear before the 1st respondent to produce all documents as mentioned in Exts.P1 and P3 summons. The said period expired on 29/9/2023. The appellant approached this court only in November, 2023. The appellant cannot choose the office of the GST department where he can appear and submit documents in response to summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. He is legally bound to appear before the officer before whom he was asked to appear. The failure of the appellant to appear before the 1^st respondent appears to be deliberate. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.