Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging GST Summons as Infructuous; Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case u/s 138 NI Act [Read Order]

In a recent order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, on the grounds that the proceedings had already become infructuous due to the lapse of time.

Gopavarapu Gangadhara Narasimha Rao and Mani Gopavarapu, directors of Eyebrawn Technologies Private Limited, who were the petitioners, contended that the summons and the subsequent pre-inquiry proceedings were illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. They sought the court’s intervention to set aside the summons and prevent coercive actions infringing upon their personal liberty.

GST Audit & Assessment notices are increasing... The question is: Are you prepared to handle them confidently? Practical Guide to Assessment & Audit under GST Grab your copy Now:

The petitioners argued that the summons issued on April 16, 2026, directing their appearance on April 30, 2026, infringed upon their personal liberty and fundamental rights. They sought a writ of Mandamus to declare the summons as illegal and to restrain the respondents from interfering with their personal life or taking coercive steps against them. They also sought a direction to prevent the respondents from initiating any coercive measures or proceedings in connection with Section 70 of the CGST Act, pending disposal of the petition.

During the hearing, the court noted that the summons had already been issued and the date for appearance had passed, rendering the relief sought infructuous. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the summons was issued without a proper legal basis and violated their constitutional rights. However, the respondents' counsel contended that the proceedings were initiated in accordance with the law and that the petitioners' rights could be safeguarded during the inquiry process.

Considering the facts, Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that since the summons had already been served and the date had passed, there was no ongoing proceeding requiring judicial intervention. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition as infructuous, pointing out that no further orders were necessary. The court also clarified that the respondents could proceed with lawful inquiries if any violations or irregularities were found. Still, pending proceedings or coercive steps could not be challenged after the prescribed date.

The order affirms that once the summons and notices are issued and the prescribed date for appearance lapses, the petitioner’s challenge becomes infructuous, and the authorities’ authority to proceed remains intact if lawful procedures are followed. The court dismissed the writ petition without costs, noting that the relief sought had become academic as the summons had already been complied with or had expired.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates