2025 (8) TMI 1544 - HC - GST

Section 69 arrests and Section 70 summons held judicial inquiry under Sections 193/228 IPC; petition dismissed as infructuous

SUPRIMKUMAR JITENDRABHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

HC held that Section 69 of the CGST/GGST Acts confers power to arrest while Section 70 authorizes summoning akin to a Civil Court and its inquiry is a ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - illegal detention of petitioner - prolonged questioning and retention of a person summoned under Section 70 of the CGST/GGST Acts, followed by arrest - Power of arrest - HELD THAT:- Section 69 of the GGST and CGST Act provides the power to arrest and Section 70 of the Act defines power to summon person to give evidence and produce document. The power under Section 70 is akin to the power of Civil Court provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The inquiry referred to in Section 70 is deemed to be a judicial proceeding within Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, as per Section 70 (2) of the CGST and GGST Act. It is an admitted fact that on 4th and 5th December 2020, the petitioner was summoned by the competent officer under Section 70 of the CGST and the GGST Act. The learned Trial Court has observed in its order that the inquiry and the questioning of the petitioner runs a long way around 232 questions. It is not worthy that the time period in which the petitioner was summoned was a peak covid period. According to the papers on record the petitioner was taken for covid test to Green Cross Laboratotory on 6.12.2020. The relief claimed in the petition since has died during the pendency of the petition this petition has become infructous. Moreover, availability of alternative efficacious remedy of revision, having not been exhausted by petitioner also renders this petition pointless. In all, accordingly, petition is disposed of. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether prolonged questioning and retention of a person summoned under Section 70 of the CGST/GGST Acts, followed by arrest under Section 69, amounts to illegal detention in violation of Article 22 and Article 21 of the Constitution when production before a Magistrate occurs after the period contended to be beyond 24 hours. 2. Whether summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST/GGST Acts can be equated to coercive detention when the person voluntarily appeared or consented to remain with the officers for inquiry. 3. Whether alleged illegal detention by tax enforcement officers gives rise to a remedy under writ jurisdiction (Article 226/Section 482 CrPC) when alternative efficacious statutory remedies such as revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC are available and when the accused is subsequently released on bail. 4. Whether the High Court should entertain claims for quashing an order of a Magistrate (challenging refusal of relief regarding period of detention) under inherent jurisdiction when specific alternative remedies exist and where the substantive relief sought has become infructuous. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Legality of retention under Section 70 and subsequent arrest under Section 69: Legal framework Section 70 of the CGST/GGST Acts empowers officers to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents; Section 70(2) deems such inquiry a judicial proceeding for purposes of certain penal provisions. Section 69 provides power of arrest for specified offences. Article 22 guarantees protection against arbitrary arrest and detention; Sections 46 and 57 CrPC govern arrest and production before magistrates within statutory time limits. Precedent Treatment The Court referred to established principles that powers of summons and inquiry under Section 70 are akin to civil/judicial processes and that arrest must comply with statutory safeguards. The Court also noted prior decisions stressing that detention beyond prescribed periods engages Article 22 and may render subsequent arrest procedure defective. Interpretation and reasoning The Court examined the sequence: summonses under Section 70 on 4th-5th December; extensive interrogation; Covid testing on 6th; arrest on 7th following issuance of authorization under Section 69. The Court found (a) records reflecting voluntary attendance/consent to remain (Annexure B), (b) questioning taking place during peak pandemic when movement restrictions existed, and (c) procedural compliance at the time of arrest and production before the Magistrate on the date of arrest. The Court concluded that the contention of illegal detention was unsustainable on record because the petitioner had voluntarily presented himself pursuant to summons and the formal arrest and production procedures under Section 69 were followed. The fact of questioning over extended hours during inquiry under Section 70 did not, on the evidence, convert attendance into an unlawful detention by the officers. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Prolonged questioning under a valid summons under Section 70, followed by formal arrest under Section 69 and production before a Magistrate on the date of arrest, is not ipso facto illegal detention absent clear evidence of forcible detention or breach of statutory safeguards. Obiter: Observations about pandemic-related constraints and judicial notice of movement restrictions are ancillary and contextual. Conclusion on Issue 1 The Court held that the petitioner's detention allegations failed on the materials: voluntary attendance and procedural compliance precluded a finding of illegal detention contrary to Article 22/21 in the facts before the Court. Issue 2 - Characterisation of Section 70 summons and voluntary attendance Legal framework Section 70 confers power akin to civil-court summons; inquiry under Section 70(2) is a judicial proceeding for limited penal consequences. Attendance under summons may be voluntary or compelled; voluntariness negates a claim of coercive detention unless accompanied by other coercive circumstances. Precedent Treatment The Court relied on the distinction between compulsory detention and compliance with summons; prior authorities permit summoning and continued questioning provided statutory limits and safeguards are respected. Interpretation and reasoning Annexure B indicated that the petitioner consented to appear; the breadth of questioning (232 questions per trial court note) does not itself establish coercion. The Court also noted that procedural acts (e.g., transport for medical testing) pointed away from clandestine detention. Therefore, attendance under Section 70, even if prolonged, was not shown to be coerced detention. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Voluntary compliance with a lawful summons under Section 70, even if resulting in prolonged questioning, cannot be equated with illegal detention absent corroborative evidence of compulsion. Obiter: Practical observations about investigative exigencies during pandemic periods. Conclusion on Issue 2 Summons-based attendance coupled with material evidence of voluntariness defeats an illegal detention claim; the petitioner's factual showing was insufficient to treat the attendance as forcible detention. Issue 3 - Availability of alternative remedies and effect of subsequent bail on writ relief Legal framework Powers of High Court under Article 226 and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC are discretionary and to be exercised sparingly. Where efficacious alternative statutory remedies (e.g., revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC) exist, extraordinary writ/jurisdiction should be invoked only in compelling circumstances. Subsequent events (e.g., release on bail) can render relief claimed infructuous. Precedent Treatment The Court cited the settled principle that Section 482 jurisdiction is exceptional and should not bypass available remedies; the High Court may decline interference when the applicant has not availed alternative remedies and when the relief sought has been overtaken by events. Interpretation and reasoning The Court observed that the petitioner had not pursued revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC against the Magistrate's order and had not demonstrated compelling circumstances to bypass that remedy. Moreover, the petitioner was subsequently released on regular bail by a Coordinate Bench, which removed the primary relief sought (release from custody), rendering the petition infructuous. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: In presence of an alternative efficacious remedy (revision) that was not exhausted and where the relief sought becomes moot by subsequent release on bail, the High Court should decline to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/Section 482. Obiter: Remarks on propriety of approaching Sessions Court first when concurrent jurisdiction exists. Conclusion on Issue 3 The petition was disposed of as infructuous and because the petitioner had not availed the alternative statutory remedy; the High Court declined to exercise inherent/writ jurisdiction to quash the impugned order in those circumstances. Issue 4 - Scope of Court's observations on illegal detention Legal framework & Reasoning Where a writ petition addresses liberty concerns but becomes infructuous, the High Court may nonetheless touch upon related issues incidentally but must limit findings to the record before it. The Court recorded that it only offshootily touched the issue of illegal detention and limited any findings to the present petition. Ratio vs. Obiter Ratio: Incidental observations on allegations of illegal detention in an otherwise disposed petition are confined to the scope of the petition and do not amount to exhaustive adjudication on that issue. Obiter: Any ancillary comments about disciplinary action against officers or deeper factual findings are not adjudicative in such disposition. Conclusion on Issue 4 The Court limited its remarks regarding detention to the present record and declined broader pronouncements; no substantive action against the officers was directed by this order. Overall Disposition The petition was disposed of as infructuous in view of the petitioner's subsequent regular bail and because the petitioner did not exhaust alternative remedies; allegations of illegal detention were held unsustainable on the materials before the Court and only briefly considered without ordering further action.