M/S. Miles Education Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court considered the submissions of both parties. It noted that the factual assertions made by the petitioners were largely addressed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC on instructions. Given that the investigation had progressed with other directors being summoned, the Court decided not to delve further into the correctness of the submissions at that stage. However, the Court reiterated the principles laid down by jurisdictional High Courts regarding the recording of statements of summoned persons. Specifically, it emphasized that such recording should be done within office hours and that the statements should be voluntary. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Miles Education Private Limited and Mr. Diwansh Pitti, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI). The grievance stemmed from the alleged illegal detention of Petitioner No. 2, Mr. Diwansh Pitti, until 12:30 AM on December 13, 2025, and the subsequent issuance of a summons at that time for his appearance on December 13, 2025, at 11:00 AM. The petitioners sought to declare these actions illegal and arbitrary, set aside the summons, and direct the DGGI to follow due process, principles of natural justice, conduct proceedings during office hours, and permit the presence of an advocate. An interim application sought to restrain coercive steps.

Key Issues

1. Whether the actions of Respondent No. 2 in detaining Petitioner No. 2 beyond office hours and issuing a summons at 12:30 AM for appearance on the same day were illegal, arbitrary, and in contravention of constitutional guarantees, particularly concerning the recording of statements under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the recording of statements should be done within office hours, citing decisions from the High Court of Bombay in FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Shiva Kumar Deora v. Union of India, and a decision of the Telangana High Court in M/s. Agarwal Foundries Private Limited Rama Towers v. Union of India. They contended that their directors were ready to cooperate with the investigation but insisted on adherence to these guidelines. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (DGGI), through its counsel, submitted that the recording of statements extended beyond office hours at the request of Petitioner No. 2, who needed to travel to Bangalore. They also stated that summons for the next date were issued because the statement could not be concluded. The respondent assured that officials generally adhere to office hours and that Instruction No. 03/2022-23 (GST-Investigation) would be followed. They further noted that Petitioner No. 2 did not appear on December 13, 2025, and his advocate appeared claiming ignorance.