Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged the issuance of summons by the GST authorities under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The summons were issued in the course of an ongoing investigation into alleged irregularities in GST compliance. The petitioner contended that the summons were issued mechanically, without proper application of mind, and were liable to be quashed on multiple grounds. It was argued that the issuance of summons itself amounted to initiation of proceedings and, therefore, attracted the bar under Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, which prevents parallel proceedings by different authorities on the same subject matter.

The petitioner also raised procedural objections, including alleged defects in the summons such as absence of proper seal, irregularities in the generation of the Document Identification Number (DIN), and apprehension of coercive action including arrest. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents relating to protection of personal liberty and safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power by tax authorities.

The Revenue resisted the petition contending that the summons were issued strictly in exercise of statutory powers under Section 70 for the purpose of inquiry and collection of evidence, and that no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 had yet been initiated. It was submitted that the petition was premature and interference at the investigation stage would frustrate statutory functions entrusted to the tax authorities.

Issue:

Whether issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act amounts to initiation of proceedings under the Act, so as to attract the bar under Section 6(2)(b)? Whether a writ petition challenging summons issued during the stage of investigation is maintainable in the absence of any adjudication or coercive action.

Held that:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and held as under – 

• The Court held that the power under Section 70 is exercised only for the purpose of inquiry, namely, to summon persons, record statements, and collect documents. Issuance of summons does not amount to initiation of proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act.
• Since no show cause notice or adjudicatory proceedings had been initiated, the statutory bar against parallel proceedings was held to be inapplicable. Proceedings commence only when a formal determination of tax liability is proposed.
• The Court observed that interference at the stage of investigation would seriously hamper the statutory functions of the GST authorities. Judicial review at this stage is limited and can be exercised only in exceptional cases of lack of jurisdiction or patent illegality, neither of which was established.
• Although an inquiry under Section 70 is deemed to be a judicial proceeding for limited purposes under the IPC, it does not confer upon the assessee any vested right to avoid participation in the investigation. 
• Alleged defects such as absence of seal or temporary non-generation of DIN, particularly when explained by the Department, were held to be curable irregularities and not sufficient grounds to invalidate the summons.
• The Court clarified that arrest under Section 69 can be made only upon fulfillment of statutory conditions, including recording of reasons to believe. Mere issuance of summons does not justify apprehension of arrest.

Case Name: Md. Aniqul Islam, Akhtar Hussain Versus Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), Delhi. dated 16.12.2025

To read the complete judgement 2025 Taxo.online 3323