Apaar Gupta vs. Prin. Addl. Director General Of GST Intelligence Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Apaar Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash a summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Principal Additional Director General of GST Intelligence. The petitioner also sought directions to obtain copies of statements recorded from himself and his employees, and to release seized raw materials and finished goods. The Court, on July 2, 2025, directed the petitioner to appear for statement recording on July 24, 2025, and if not possible, on July 25, 2025, with the officer to report compliance. Subsequently, on July 30, 2025, the Court noted that the petitioner's statement had been recorded, and further proceedings would depend on data retrieval.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's statement had been recorded as directed, and the respondent was at liberty to continue proceedings as per law. Regarding the request for certified copies of statements under Section 17, the Court found no statutory provision in the CGST Act, 2017, entitling the petitioner to certified copies of statements recorded under Section 17. The Court accepted the respondent's contention that relevant documents would be provided at the stage of issuing a show cause notice under Section 74. For the release of seized goods, the Court held that this was covered by sub-Section (6) of Section 67 and directed the proper officer to consider the release of goods within fifteen days of receiving a certified copy of the order, subject to formalities. Regarding the prayer for a general prohibition against coercive action, the Court stated it could not issue such an omnibus direction when proceedings under the Act were underway, and coercive measures could only be taken as per law and if a cause existed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, given that multiple summons had already been issued and statements recorded. (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to certified copies of statements recorded under Section 17 of the CGST Act, 2017, upon payment of requisite fees. (Question of law) 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of seized raw materials and finished goods based on applications dated April 1, 2025, and April 4, 2025. (Question of law) 4. Whether the Court should issue a general prohibition against coercive action against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition. (Question of law) Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that repeated summons were unnecessary and sought to quash the latest summons. They also contended for the right to obtain copies of recorded statements and the release of seized goods. They further sought protection from coercive action. Contentions of the Respondent (Principal Additional Director General of GST Intelligence): The respondent stated that the petitioner should appear for statement recording. Regarding the release of documents, they contended that these would be provided at the time of issuing a show cause notice under Section 74. They did not contest the procedure for releasing seized goods under Section 67(6).
Sections Cited
Section 70, Section 67, Section 17, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44123-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 540 of 2025 Petitioner :- Apaar Gupta Respondent :- Prin. Addl. Director General Of Gst Intelligence Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Digvijay Nath Dubey,Dheeraj Srivastava Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard.
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the summons dated 23.05.2025 issued by the Opp. Party no. 3 to the Petitioner, as contained in Annexure No. 2 to this Writ Petition since several summons u/s 70 had already been issued and the Petitioner has made his statement on number of dates. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to provide the copies of the statements recorded u/s 70 of the Petitioner as well as his employees on payment of requisite fee. c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to release the stocks of raw material as well as the finished goods in pursuance of the applications dated 01.04.2025 and 04.04.2025 submitted by the Petitioner. d) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus/prohibition, directing/prohibiting the Opp. Parties from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner during the pendency of this Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court. e) Issue such other suitable writ, order or direction be issued as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. f) Award the costs of the Petition to the Petitioner. "
On 02.07.2025, we had passed the following order:- "Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 to 3, which is taken on record. Office is directed to print his name in the cause list when the case is next
listed. Sri Pradeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, which is also taken on record. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is being repeatedly summoned under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for recording of his statement but the same is not being recorded. Sri Padum Singh, Senior Intelligence Officer, who has to record the statement, for which summons have been issued, is present. He says that the petitioner should appear on 24.07.2025 at 11:30 A.M. for the said purpose so that his statement may be recorded. Let the petitioner appear before the concerned officer on 24.07.2025 at 11:30 A.M. at the address given in the summons signed on 23.05.2025. If for some reason it is not possible to record the said statement on the said date, it may be recorded on the immediately next date i.e. 25.07.2025. The matter shall now come up before this Court on 29.07.2025 as fresh. On the next date, the officer shall inform the Court as to whether the statement has been recorded or not, if not, the reasons thereof. "
In pursuance to our order dated 02.07.2025, statement of the petitioner has been recorded on 24.07.2025 and 25.07.2025 as accepted by Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party nos.1 to 3 who says that as of now, the statement of the petitioner is not required to be recorded, however, he says that data is being retrieved from the computers etc seized by the opposite party and further proceedings would be held.
Opposite parties are at liberty to continue with the proceedings as per law. As regards relief no.(b) is concerned, we asked learned counsel for the petitioner to establish before us with reference to statutory provisions contained in C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 (in short 'the Act, 2017') which may entitle him to certified copies of the statement as recorded under Section 17, learned counsel referred to sub-Section (5) of Section 67 as also sub-Section (6) thereof. Having perused the same, we do not find any reference therein to certified copies of statements recorded under Section 17 as being required to be furnished to the person. As regards the document referred therein, learned counsel for the opposite parties says that they would be provided at the time of issuance of show cause notice under Section 74, therefore, the same would be considered at this stage. We accept the contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties on this score. As regards relief no.(c), it is covered by sub-Section (6) of Section 67, therefore, the release of the said goods would be considered by the proper officer at the earliest say within fifteen days of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with an application subject to completion of formalities mentioned therein and the rules corresponding thereto. As regards relief no.(d), we cannot issue such omnibus direction when proceedings under the Act, 2017 are underway which include coercive measures but only as per law and if there is a cause.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2025 Shanu/- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.