M/S King Security Guard Services PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Of The CGST

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against a summoning order for the production of documents or for recording statements, citing its previous decision in Himgiri Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of the CGST, Commissionerate at Dehradun. However, acknowledging the petitioners' apprehension regarding arrest, the Court directed that petitioner no. 2 shall appear before respondent no. 2 within 15 days. Crucially, the Court further directed that before taking any steps to arrest petitioner no. 2, the Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun, must comply with the provisions of Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, in letter and spirit. This means the Commissioner must arrive at a definite conclusion, based on credible materials, that the petitioner has committed an offence, and must record the reasons and materials considered before authorizing any arrest. A violation of this direction would be considered contempt of court. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s King Security Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging a summoning order (Annexure No. 2) issued by respondent no. 2 under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners sought quashing of the summoning order and a direction commanding the respondents not to arrest petitioner no. 2 during pre-inquiry proceedings. They also prayed for a direction to the respondent authority not to arrest them in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, while expressing their readiness to cooperate with the inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a summoning order issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the production of documents and recording of statements. 2. Whether the respondents can arrest the petitioners in pre-inquiry proceedings based on a notice issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that a writ petition is maintainable against the summoning order and that they should not be arrested during the pre-inquiry stage. They expressed their willingness to cooperate with the inquiry proceedings. Respondent's Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted their arguments. The judgment does not explicitly detail the respondents' specific arguments beyond their participation in the proceedings and their counsel's submissions.