M/S Himgiri Ispat PVT. LTD. 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. Consequently, the Court declined to follow the precedent set by a coordinate bench that had granted stay orders restraining arrest. However, acknowledging the petitioners' apprehension, the Court directed that the petitioners shall appear before the Authority for recording their statement. Crucially, the Court mandated that before any steps for arrest are taken, the Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun, must strictly comply with the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 69 of the CGST Act. This requires the Commissioner to form a definite conclusion, based on credible materials, that the petitioner has committed an offense, and to record the reasons and materials considered before authorizing any officer to arrest the petitioner. Violation of this order would be considered contempt of court. Additionally, the Court directed that if the petitioner wished, they could be assisted by a qualified person during the inquiry or statement recording under Section 70, and they should not be detained beyond reasonable working hours.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Himgiri Ispat Pvt. Ltd. and others, filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging a summoning order dated January 10, 2022, issued by the Inquiring Officer under the CGST Act. The petitioners sought to quash this summoning order and sought a direction to prevent their arrest 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, asserting their readiness to cooperate with the inquiry. The petitioners cited previous orders from a coordinate bench where stay orders were granted restraining arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ to quash a summoning order issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act is maintainable? The petitioner argued that the summoning order was illegal and sought its quashing, relying on previous orders from a coordinate bench that granted stay orders against arrest. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun, did not explicitly argue on the maintainability of the writ to quash the summoning order, but their presence and engagement in the proceedings indicate a defense against the petitioner's claims. The court, however, directly addressed the maintainability of the writ to quash the summoning order, stating its opinion on the matter.