Facts of the Case:

In this case, the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) initiated a search under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, which continued till the early hours of 23.03.2024. Documents, mobile phones, and allegedly non-duty-paid biri were seized. The Petitioners alleged serious procedural irregularities in the Panchnama, including incorrect dates, lack of signatures, absence of official seals, and improper listing of seized documents. It was also alleged that officers acted beyond statutory authority by involving the Income Tax Department. Summons were issued under Section 70 CGST Act to the petitioners for recording statements and production of documents. The Petitioners contended that the summons were issued mechanically, in violation of CBIC Circulars and DIN guidelines, and were accompanied by illegal detention and coercion. The Petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the summons , release of seized goods/documents, and protection against illegal detention during investigation.

Issue:

Whether the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act could be quashed on the ground of alleged procedural violations, coercion, and apprehension of arrest. Whether issuance of summons during investigation amounts to initiation of proceedings, warranting judicial interference under Article 226. Whether the High Court should grant protection against arrest or detention at the stage of inquiry under GST laws.

Held that:

The Court reiterated that a summons is merely a step in the process of investigation for gathering information and evidence, and cannot be equated with assessment or adjudicatory proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act. Relying on authoritative precedents, including Armour Security (India) Ltd., Jatin Gupta, and the Supreme Court decision in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India (2025), the Court held that adequate statutory safeguards exist under Section 69 CGST Act governing arrest, and mere apprehension of arrest at the stage of inquiry does not justify quashing of summons.

The Court found no illegality in the issuance of summons, noting that they were issued for recording statements and seeking documents relating to goods seized during search operations. The prayer to set aside the summons was held to be, in substance, a request for anticipatory bail at an inquiry stage, which was impermissible.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that summons issued under Section 70 CGST Act are part of an inquiry and do not amount to initiation of proceedings. The Court reiterated that a summons is merely a step in the process of investigation for gathering information and evidence, and cannot be equated with assessment or adjudicatory proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of the Act.

Case Name: Naveen And Suraj Kumar Versus Directorate General of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence Delhi. dated 30.01.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 221