M/S Asgard Ingots Near Birls Tyre Company vs. Commissioner Of The C G S T Commissionerate At Dehradun

Held

The Court held that a writ to quash a summoning order is not maintainable and therefore, it was not inclined to follow the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench granting such relief, as they do not constitute a binding precedent. However, acknowledging the petitioners' apprehension, the Court directed that the petitioners shall appear before the Authority for recording their statements. Crucially, the Court directed that before taking any steps to arrest, the Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun, must comply with the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 69 of the CGST Act in letter and spirit. This means the Commissioner must conclude, based on credible materials, that the petitioners have committed an offense and must record the reasons and materials considered before authorizing any person to arrest them. A violation of this order would be considered contempt of court. Regarding representation, the Court directed that if the petitioners wished, they could bring their accountant to assist in explaining details, and they should not be detained beyond reasonable working hours. The writ application was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Asgard Ingots and another, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging a summoning order issued by the Inquiring Officer for recording their statements. They also sought a direction to prevent their arrest in pre-inquiry proceedings and in pursuance of a notice issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The petitioners expressed apprehension of arrest and stated their readiness to cooperate with the inquiry. The respondents are the Commissioner of CGST and others.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash a summoning order is maintainable under Section 70 of the CGST Act? - Petitioner's contention: The petitioners sought to quash the summoning order and prevent arrest, relying on orders from a Coordinate Bench that granted stay orders restraining arrest. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the Commissioner of CGST must comply with the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 69 of the CGST Act before authorizing an arrest? - Petitioner's contention: The petitioners sought a mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest them and to protect their liberty, emphasizing their cooperation with the inquiry. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to legal representation or assistance during the inquiry proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act? - Petitioner's contention: The petitioners sought proper and legal representation at the time of inquiry or recording of statement. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.