Nikhil Gupta vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Nikhil Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging multiple summonses issued by State GST authorities under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST/UTGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that these summonses were repetitive, sought documents already submitted or seized, and constituted harassment. He also alleged that amounts were deposited under coercion without any adverse order. The petitioner sought to quash the summonses, restrain further repetitive notices, direct coordination between State and Central GST authorities, prevent coercive recovery without statutory notices and orders, allow filing of annual returns, and refund excess recoveries. The State GST authorities initiated search and seizure proceedings under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, and an audit under Section 65.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was premature. The impugned notices were merely seeking information and documents from the petitioner, and the petitioner had already provided a representation in response. The Court found no evidence on record to support the petitioner's claims of coercion to make deposits or threats of arrest. The Revenue's submission that an adjudication order under Section 73 of the Act had been passed for the Financial Year 2021-22 was noted. The Court concluded that the Department was exercising its power under Section 70 of the Act to call for information and documents. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of prematurity. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding harassment, coercion, or the legality of parallel proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable as premature, given that no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner and the impugned notices only seek information and documents under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the repeated issuance of summonses under Section 70, especially for documents already provided or seized, amounted to harassment and arbitrary action. He also contended that coercive deposits were made without any formal adjudication. The petitioner sought to restrain parallel proceedings by State GST authorities and ensure coordination with Central GST authorities as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. He also sought directions to allow filing of annual returns and process refunds. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the writ petition was premature as no adverse order had been passed. They denied that the petitioner was coerced into making any deposit. The Revenue asserted that an adjudication order under Section 73 of the Act existed for the Financial Year 2021-22 and that they were within their rights to seek information and documents under Section 70.