M/S Multitech Agro INDIA (Opc) PVT LTD vs. The State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court held that the summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, with the specific wording regarding not leaving the office without permission, was not to be understood as a notice for detention or arrest. The High Court Government Pleader clarified that the purpose was to ensure cooperation in the proceedings and that such language was not indicative of an intention to detain or arrest the petitioner. The Court found these submissions persuasive and concluded that there was no cause for interference. Therefore, the petition was disposed of without any further directions, accepting the respondents' submissions on record.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Multitech Agro India (OPC) Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a summons dated 28.10.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement). The petitioner's grievance stemmed from specific directions in the summons stating, "You’re hereby directed not to leave the above said office without permission and if the case is adjourned, without ascertaining the date of adjournment." The petitioner apprehended detention or arrest based on this wording. The respondents, represented by the State of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner, argued that the summons was issued to ensure cooperation in the proceedings and that the language did not imply detention or arrest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summons issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with the specific direction not to leave the office without permission, constitutes a cause for interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly concerning apprehension of detention or arrest. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the restrictive language in the summons, prohibiting them from leaving the office without permission, created an apprehension of detention or arrest, justifying judicial intervention. Revenue's Argument: The respondents argued that the summons was issued to ensure cooperation in the proceedings and that the language used was not intended to signify detention or arrest. They further submitted that the High Court has consistently held against interference with summons under Article 226, and if the petitioner failed to cooperate, appropriate legal recourse would be taken.