2022 (8) TMI 813 - HC - GST

Validity of summon order - seeking direction to respondent not to arrest the petitioners in pre inquiry proceeding in pursuance of the summon - Section 70 of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - This Court while deciding a similar issue in the case of Himgiri Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of the CGST, Commissionerate at Dehradun 2022 (2) TMI 1107 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT has held that a writ petition is not maintainable against an order of show cause or summoning order for production of documents. However, certain directions were issued to the respondents to comply with, as envisaged under Section 69 (1) of the Act. It is directed that petitioners shall appear before respondent no. 3 within 15 days from today and if so advised, they may take assistance of an Accountant but if respondent no. 3 desires to arrest the petitioners, then he shall comply with the provisions of Section 69 (1) of the Act. The writ petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to summoning order under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in a writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought relief through a writ petition to quash the summoning order issued to them and prevent their arrest during pre-inquiry proceedings. The petition challenged Annexure No. 5 - the summoning order issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

2. The Court referred to a previous case, Himgiri Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of the CGST, where it was established that a writ petition is not maintainable against a summoning order. However, the Court issued directions under Section 69(1) of the Act for compliance by the respondents. The judgment emphasized the need for the Commissioner to have credible evidence before authorizing an arrest, ensuring a fair process.

3. Despite the non-maintainability of the writ to quash the summoning order, the Court directed the petitioners to appear before the authority within 15 days. If the authority intended to arrest the petitioners, they were instructed to adhere to the provisions of Section 69(1) of the Act. The judgment aimed to balance the interests of the petitioners and the legal requirements for arrest under the Act.

4. The Court's decision focused on ensuring procedural fairness and protecting the petitioners' rights while upholding the legal framework of the CGST Act. By providing specific directions for compliance and emphasizing the need for credible evidence before an arrest, the judgment aimed to maintain the integrity of the inquiry process and prevent arbitrary actions by the authorities.

5. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the Court's observations and directions, highlighting the importance of following legal procedures and ensuring a transparent and fair inquiry process under the CGST Act. The judgment served to clarify the scope of writ petitions in challenging summoning orders and underscored the significance of due process in such matters.