High Court restrains coercive action against petitioner, emphasizes legal question significance for final hearing. Counsel to provide paper book. Jurisdictional issue highlighted.

The High Court issued a notice to the respondents, directing no coercive action against the petitioner until the next hearing. The court emphasized the significance of the legal question and intended to hear the matter finally on the next date. The petitioner's counsel was instructed to provide a copy of the paper book to the Additional Solicitor General for guidance. The court highlighted the importance of the jurisdictional issue raised and ordered the matter to be prominently displayed for the next hearing.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017

In this judgment, the petitioner, a sole proprietor of a proprietary firm, challenged the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad in issuing summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the proper officer under the CGST Act was the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi South Commissionerate, who had already initiated an investigation and granted permission to search the business premises. The petitioner argued that the Directorate General lacked jurisdiction to issue any summons for the same investigation. The counsel relied on the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court to support the argument on jurisdictional issues.

The High Court issued a notice to the respondents, making it returnable on a specified date. The court directed that no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing. The respondents were to be served directly through email. The petitioner's counsel was instructed to provide a copy of the paper book to the Additional Solicitor General of India for appropriate instructions. The court expressed its intention to hear the matter finally on the next date as it involved a significant legal question. The court emphasized the importance of the issue raised and instructed to notify the matter prominently on the board for the next hearing.

---