Resizone Buildwell PVT LTD vs. Director General Of Anti Profiteering

Held

The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice or a summon. Since no order adversely affecting the petitioner's interest had been passed, the writ petition was considered premature and was dismissed. However, the Court also directed that if the petitioner had previously responded to a similar summon, the respondent authority should consider that reply and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition cannot be filed against interlocutory steps in an investigation or inquiry.

Facts

The petitioner, Resizone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., a builder, received a summon on January 12, 2021, from the Additional Assistant Director, Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering, Department of Revenue. This action was based on a complaint by a home buyer alleging that the petitioner had not passed on the benefit of a reduction in the GST tax rate. The summon, issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rule 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, required the petitioner to produce specified documents. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this summon, arguing that they had already responded to a previous, similar summon.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a summon issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable as they had already responded to a prior summon and were seeking a direction to consider their previous reply. The respondents, however, did not make any submissions. The Court had to decide if the current summon constituted a final order affecting the petitioner's rights, making the writ petition premature.