Section 70 CGST summons must follow prescribed procedural safeguards when recording statements; allegations about petitioner's son excluded from petition scope.

HC directed that summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act must be governed by the procedural safeguards outlined by the Supreme Court; respondents are required to follow that procedure when recording the petitioner's statement pursuant to the summons. The court held that allegations concerning the petitioner's son do not form part of the petition's subject matter. The petition was disposed of with the direction that the prescribed procedure be followed by the authorities.

---

---

Issues:
1. Exemption from personal appearance under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Entitlement to be represented through an authorized representative under Section 116 of the Act of 2017.
3. Allegations of high-handed actions by GST authorities.
4. Consideration of requests for changing the date of personal appearance or granting relief in cases of personal disability.
5. Compliance with procedures for recording statements under Section 70 of the Act of 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing entitlement to representation through an authorized representative as per Section 116. The petitioner relied on a Bombay High Court judgment for support, emphasizing the need for flexibility in appearance requirements based on FAQs clarification.

2. The respondents contended that the summons were issued under Section 70, necessitating personal appearance and overriding the provisions of Section 116. They argued against the applicability of FAQs for representation through a legal representative, asserting that administrative instructions cannot contravene statutory provisions.

3. The petitioner alleged high-handed actions by GST authorities, highlighting the apprehension of harassment due to the petitioner's son being involved in a search and seizure process. However, the court refrained from commenting on this matter, stating it was not within the scope of the petition.

4. The petitioner's plea for consideration of requests to change the appearance date or grant relief in cases of personal disability was deemed a matter for the concerned authority's discretion, not the court's intervention. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to address such issues directly to the authority.

5. Regarding compliance with procedures for recording statements under Section 70, the court referred to directions from the Supreme Court on following specified procedures. The court underscored the importance of adherence to prescribed procedures, emphasizing the need for proper protocol in summoning individuals for personal appearances and statement recordings.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition without granting the relief sought by the petitioner, emphasizing adherence to established procedures and the limited scope for court intervention in certain matters raised by the petitioner.

---