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 an order of show cause or a summoning order for the production of documents, citing its previous decision in Himgiri Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of the CGST. However, considering the apprehension of the petitioners regarding arrest, the Court directed that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 shall appear before Respondent No. 2 within 15 days. If Respondent No. 2 desires to arrest petitioner nos. 2 and 3, he must comply with the provisions of Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which requires the Commissioner to come to a definite conclusion based on credible material that an offence has been committed and to record the reasons and material considered before authorizing an arrest. The ratio decidendi is that while a summoning order itself is not directly challengeable via a writ, the power of arrest must be exercised strictly in accordance with Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, with proper recording of reasons and material. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s King Security Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed a writ petition 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 to quash the summoning order and sought a direction commanding the respondents not to arrest them in 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 proceedings. The summoning order was dated July 13, 2022, and was issued to petitioner nos. 2 and 3.

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? (Question of law) 2. Whether the respondents can arrest the petitioners in pre-inquiry proceedings pursuant to a notice issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, without complying with specific statutory provisions? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners sought to quash the summoning order and prevent their arrest during pre-inquiry proceedings, emphasizing their willingness to cooperate. They relied on the apprehension of arrest. Respondent's arguments: The respondents issued the summoning order under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents beyond their role in issuing the summons.