Summons under GST inquiry power may stand unless shown to be without jurisdiction, arbitrary, or abusive.

Section 70 of the CGST Act permits the proper officer to summon any person whose attendance is necessary for inquiry, and a director is not automatically exempt merely because the company acted through another representative. Writ interference under Article 226 is confined to cases where the summons is shown to be without jurisdiction, issued for an oblique purpose, or otherwise amounts to abuse of power, arbitrariness, or harassment. The administrative circular referred to guides fair exercise of the statutory power, but does not limit that power itself. No final adjudication on the summons was made, and interim protection continued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 called for interference in writ jurisdiction on the grounds of harassment, arbitrariness, and non-compliance with the administrative circular.

Analysis: Section 70 empowers the proper officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary in an inquiry. A director is not automatically insulated from inquiry merely because the company has acted through another representative, and the investigating authority is entitled to assess whether the director's attendance is necessary. In writ review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interference is warranted only where the summons is shown to be without jurisdiction, issued for an oblique purpose, or otherwise amounts to abuse of power or harassment. The administrative circular relied upon is intended to guide the exercise of statutory power and reflects the requirement of administrative fairness, but it does not curtail the statutory power itself. Any judicial interference would depend on demonstrable arbitrariness in the exercise of that power.

Conclusion: No final adjudication was made on the validity of the summons, and the matter was kept pending with the interim protection continuing.

---