Interference with CGST summons at inquiry stage is disfavoured; writ challenge was held not maintainable on the facts pleaded.
High Court interference with summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act at the inquiry stage is not ordinarily warranted because the proper officer may summon persons or documents while the inquiry remains pending. The Court applied the settled restraint against premature judicial review and declined interference, noting that exceptional circumstances were not shown. It also held that a writ challenge to the summons was not maintainable on the facts pleaded, including alleged lack of authority and parallel investigation, and refused relief. The petition was rejected and interim protection stood vacated.
Issues: (i) Whether the High Court should interfere with summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at the stage of inquiry; (ii) Whether a writ petition challenging such summons was maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and parallel investigation.
Issue (i): Whether the High Court should interfere with summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at the stage of inquiry.
Analysis: Section 70 empowers the proper officer to summon persons for evidence or documents in the course of inquiry, and the inquiry is deemed to be a judicial proceeding. The Court relied on the settled principle that interference at the summons stage is not ordinarily warranted, except in exceptional cases, because the department has not yet reached a final view on the matter.
Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the summons at the inquiry stage.
Issue (ii): Whether a writ petition challenging such summons was maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and parallel investigation.
Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner's challenge was founded on alleged lack of authority in issuing summons and on the assertion of parallel inquiry by different agencies. It held that the writ challenge to summons was not maintainable on these facts, and found the cited authorities of no assistance to the petitioner.
Conclusion: The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and refused interference.
Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected and the interim protection granted earlier stood vacated.
Ratio Decidendi: A High Court will not ordinarily interfere under Article 226 with summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 at the inquiry stage, and a writ petition challenging such summons is not maintainable absent exceptional circumstances.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
