Nitin Goel vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Facts

The petitioner, Nitin Goel, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking protection against coercive action. The respondent is the Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The petition was filed following a previous order dated June 25, 2024. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, through its counsel, stated that no coercive action is currently contemplated against the petitioner. This stance is based on the procedure outlined in Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which involves issuing summons for inquiry and production of documents before considering arrest. The Directorate referred to a coordinate bench's judgment in *Shri Jatin Gupta @ Parul v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence Unit Delhi* for elaboration on the elements of Section 69.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence that no coercive action is contemplated against the petitioner at this stage. This position was articulated in light of the procedure entailed under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Directorate referred to a judgment by a Coordinate Bench in *Shri Jatin Gupta @ Parul v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence Unit Delhi*, which explained that the Department first issues summons for inquiry and production of documents before moving a file for arrest. The Court found no immediate apprehension of arrest for the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that no further directions were required at this stage. The petitioner was directed to participate in the investigation as and when summoned. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Court again if any coercive action is intimated, apprehended, or contemplated. The petition was disposed of on this basis.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Directorate General of GST Intelligence is contemplating any coercive action against the petitioner, Nitin Goel, in light of the procedure stipulated under Section 69 of the CGST Act? The petitioner, through his counsel, sought protection from coercive measures. The respondent, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, argued that no coercive action is currently contemplated. They relied on the procedural steps mandated by Section 69 of the CGST Act, which involves issuing summons for inquiry and production of documents before any arrest is considered. The respondent also referred to a prior judgment by a coordinate bench, *Shri Jatin Gupta @ Parul v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence Unit Delhi*, which enunciated the elements of Section 69 and the sequence of actions leading to potential arrest. The respondent's submission indicated that based on these procedures, there was no immediate apprehension of arrest for the petitioner at this stage.