Summons u/s 70 CGST Act Held Valid: Bombay HC Court Rules No Illegal Detention, 10 lakh Compensation Plea Dismissed [Read Order]
The copies of the said summonses, it is clearly show that they were received by the petitioner without raising any objection by acknowledging them under their respective signatures.
In a recent ruling Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking 10 lakh compensation for alleging illegal detention by GST officers. The Court held that the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act was valid and that taking statements and do not constitute detention.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha, challenging his arrest and custody in Case No. 1/2025. The petitioner has sought direction to respondent No.4 to give him compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) towards his illegal arrest.
The petitioner argued that GST officers had taken him into custody on 17.06.2025 without a summons or an arrest memo, kept him at Aurangabad till 20.06.2025, and only formally arrested him on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act.
Petitioner added that, in fact, 7 day's notice was required for issuing a summons as per order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, since there is no specific provision about the duration mentioned in Section 70 of the CGST Act. Petitioner claimed a violation of constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22, and sought compensation for unlawful detention.
On the other hand, the respondent strongly opposed the arguments made by the petitioner .adedd that the petitioner was managing affairs of M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd., which was allegedly involved in fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims.
They argued that he was summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act for recording statements, and that he voluntarily attended inquiries between 17.06.2025 and 20.06.2025. pointed out that the proper procedure was followed while giving a summons.
After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not mandate a 7‑day prior notice for summons, unlike provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure; it has to be held that a person can be summoned for making inquiry and recording his statement under the said provision, which does not amount to detention.
The bench of Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Y.G. Khobragade added that the petitioner had acknowledged summonses and attended inquiries without objection. Records showed the petitioner was allowed to use his mobile phones and was not under forced detention before his formal arrest.
The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim of illegal custody was unfounded and refused to grant compensation. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
