GST Summoning Orders Cannot Be Quashed: Court Sets Safeguards for Section 69 Arrests and Section 70 Inquiries

The HC disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST summoning order, ruling that quashing such orders is not maintainable. While directing the petitioner to appear before the summoning Authority, the Court imposed safeguards: the Commissioner must have credible evidence before authorizing arrest under Section 69(1) of CGST Act, with documented reasoning; the petitioner may have qualified assistance during inquiry under Section 70; and detention cannot extend beyond reasonable working hours. These directives balance procedural fairness with protection of the petitioner's rights during GST inquiry proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging a summoning order in a writ petition; legality of quashing a summoning order; maintaining legal representation during inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought writs to quash the summoning order dated 10.01.2022 and prevent arrest during pre-inquiry proceedings. The Court noted the challenge to the summoning order but deemed a writ to quash it as not maintainable. The Court disregarded previous stay orders from a Coordinate Bench, stating they do not set a binding precedent. However, considering the petitioner's concerns, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the summoning Authority, emphasizing compliance with Section 69(1) of the CGST Act before any arrest steps are taken.

2. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner of CGST must ensure a definite conclusion of the petitioner's offense based on credible evidence before authorizing any arrest. The Commissioner must document the reasons and materials considered for the decision. Any violation of this directive would be treated as contempt of court. This directive aimed to safeguard the petitioner's rights and prevent arbitrary arrests without proper justification.

3. Addressing the issue of legal representation during inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act, the Court directed that the petitioner could have a qualified person assist in explaining details if desired. Additionally, the petitioner should not be detained beyond reasonable working hours during the inquiry process. This directive aimed to ensure the petitioner's right to legal representation and prevent undue delays or restrictions during the inquiry proceedings.

4. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ application, having provided detailed directives to balance the petitioner's rights and legal procedures. The judgment focused on ensuring procedural fairness, adherence to statutory requirements, and protection of the petitioner's rights during the inquiry process under the CGST Act.

---