Facts of the Case:

In this case, GST officers visited the office of a Chartered Accountant on 17.06.2025, where the petitioner works and from where the petitioner was allegedly taken into custody without any summons or arrest memo. It was alleged that he was illegally transported from Mumbai to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and detained at the GST Bhavan from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without being produced before a Magistrate. The petitioner contended that only on 21.06.2025, a formal arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act was shown, followed by his production before the Magistrate. The petitioner claimed violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, non-compliance with guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu and Joginder Kumar, and further contended that summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were fabricated and invalid as no seven days’ prior notice was given. 

The respondents opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner was a key person managing the affairs of the company involved in large-scale fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit, and that from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025, he was present pursuant to valid summons issued under Section 70 for recording statements.

Issue:

Whether the presence of the petitioner with GST authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 pursuant to summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act amounted to illegal detention, thereby entitling him to monetary compensation.

Held that:

The Court found that the petitioner had acknowledged the summons issued to him on multiple dates between 17.06.2025 and 20.06.2025, had attended the GST office without raising any protest, and had not made any contemporaneous complaint alleging illegal detention. The Court further noted that the petitioner was not confined or restrained, was permitted to use his mobile phones, and could have contacted his family members during the relevant period.

The Court held that summoning a person under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statements does not amount to detention, unless there is material to show coercion, restraint on liberty, or violation of statutory or constitutional safeguards.

The Court rejected the contention that seven days’ prior notice is mandatory for issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, holding that the provision merely adopts the manner of summoning as under the Code of Civil Procedure, and does not prescribe any minimum notice period. Reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhika Agarwal v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that a person summoned under Section 70 is not per se an accused, and the investigative authorities must be allowed to conduct inquiry in accordance with law, subject to compliance with statutory and constitutional safeguards.

The Court found no material to establish that the petitioner was illegally detained prior to his formal arrest on 21.06.2025, which was followed by immediate production before the Magistrate. Consequently, the Court held that no case for grant of compensation was made out, and dismissed the writ petition.

Case Name: Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha Versus Union of India Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, Principal Commissioner Mr. Pradip Gurumurthy, CGST & Central Excise, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Additional Commissioner (Preventive) Mr. Rajkumar Kendre, CGST & Central Excise, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, The Superintendent (Preventive) Mr. B.S. Nade, CGST & Central Excise, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, State of Maharashtra. dated 05.02.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 300