Summons under Section 70 CGST Act for inquiry needs no 7-day notice; voluntary attendance and compliance do not amount to detention, precluding compensation claims.

JUDGMENT :

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha, who is posing himself as an Office Boy in M/s Kabsan Services Private Limited, is seeking declaration about his arrest by present respondent No.4 in Case No.1/2025, as null and void. He has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 21.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nanded granting his magisterial custody. Consequently, the petitioner has sought direction to respondent No.4 to give him compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) towards his illegal arrest.

3. Chronology of the events and background facts as claimed by the petitioner, can be summarised as under :

On 17.06.2025 around 1.00 p.m. GST Officers visited office of one Chartered Accountant Bhavik Bhanushali (Mehta) at Mumbai. Thereafter the petitioner was telephonically called there and taken into custody by these GST Officers without any summons or arrest memo on the same day. Thereafter he was taken out of Mumbai to Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar without informing his family members. On 18.06.2025 the petitioner was brought and illegally detained at CGST and Central Excise Office, GST Bhavan, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. He was kept there in the custody without showing any arrest and without producing him before any Magistrate till 20.06.2025. On 20.06.2025 wife of the petitioner approached an Advocate who visited CGST Office and met the petitioner there. According to respondent No.4, petitioner was called since 17.06.2025 for recording his statement as witness. Therefore, advocate of the petitioner e- mailed multiple senior GST officers seeking information regarding basis of custody of petitioner and his expected release. But respondent No.4, in turn, issued threatening reply e-mail by refusing to provide any information. Advocate for the petitioner again sent e-mail reiterating illegality of his detention. However, on 21.06.2025, respondent No.4 shown formal arrest of the petitioner at Nanded under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short, “CGST Act”) and filed Case No. 1/2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Nanded for the offence punishable under Sections 132 (1)(b), 132 (1)(c) and 132 (I)(i) of the CGST Act. On 21.06.2025 the concerned Magistrate remanded the petitioner in M.C.R. till 03.07.2025. The petitioner, on the same day, filed bail application before concerned Magistrate citing his illegal detention since 17.06.2025. However, after filing say opposing the said bail application, the same was rejected by the concerned Magistrate on 23.06.2025. Then on 26.06.2025, petitioner filed fresh bail application before the Sessions Judge, Nanded and subsequently filed application for interim bail on 03.07.2025. Though the learned Sessions Judge allowed application of interim bail on 04.07.2025, but the respondents Authorities immediately filed application for cancellation of said bail application on 05.07.2025, and therefore, the concerned learned Sessions Judge granted stay to the interim bail. However, this Court then directed to decide the bail application of the petitioner, and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, after hearing both the parties, was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner. As such, the petitioner is now claiming the aforesaid reliefs on the ground of his alleged illegal detention.

4. Learned counsel for