Summons issued under Section 70 CGST Act are part of an inquiry and do not amount to the initiation of legal proceedings, requiring adherence to procedural safeguards.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Article 226/227 Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside of the Summons dated 20.05.2024 against the Petitioner No.1 and for release of the papers/documents/goods seized by them on 23.03.2024 and to restrain the Respondent DGGI, not to illegally detain the Petitioner in odd hours.

2. Briefly stated, the Petitioner No.1, Naveen, and Petitioner No.2, Suraj are real brothers. The business is carried out by Petitioner No.1 who is a disabled person, duly assisted by Petitioner No.2 who looks after marketing of the business. The GST Registration number of the Petitioner No.1 is 06AJDPN0801E1ZV, and he has been regularly filing GST returns.

3. The father of the Petitioners was engaged in a small-scale business in the trading of bidi in some parts of Delhi since 2015 by the brand name Udaan. It is submitted that all the transactions carried out by the Petitioners, are duly backed by relevant tax Invoices for which payments were made through banking channels only.

4. The Petitioner had not received any Show Cause Notice or Notice with respect to recovery from the Respondent-DGGI, in the last five years.

5. The Respondent initiated a search and survey from 10:55AM 22.03.2024, which was concluded at 2:30AM on 23.03.2024. A Panchnama dated 23.03.2024 was prepared, as per which the search had been carried out on 22.11.2024 (future-dated). The Petitioner asserts that the said error is a colourable exercise being conducted without any control or check. Furthermore, the Panchnama does not contain the signatures of the officers present, nor has any seal been affixed on the same. Despite various officers having visited the premises, only one officer and two witnesses, had signed the Panchnama, which was contrary to the Guidelines framed by the Respondent. The seized documents were not properly listed. Even the purpose of calling the Income Tax team was not defined. The Petitioners claim that they had fully cooperated during the course of the search and survey, as per the Panchnama. Thus, it is evident that the mala fide objective of the Respondent was not served. It is submitted that there is no provision in the GST Act which permits the Respondent officials to contact the Income Tax Department.

6. Petitioner No.1 was issued Summons dated 06.05.2024 with a direction to appear on 03.05.2024. The Petitioner No.1 had provided all the documents which were sought by the Respondent, on 06.05.2024. The Summons dated 06.05.2024 were issued in a mechanical manner, since the direction was to appear on 03.05.2024, despite carrying the DIN as per the Guidelines issued by the office of the CGST Act, 2017. It is stated that the entire process is bogus and the erring officials have failed to adhere to the said Guidelines.

7. Another Summons dated 20.05.2024 was issued seeking the presence of the Petitioner No.1 on 24.05.2024. Summons dated 28.05.2024 was issued seeking the presence of Petitioner No.2 on 03.06.2024. Petitioner No.2 had in compliance of Summons dated 28.05.2024, appeared before the Respondent at about 11AM and was detained till 10:30PM in the night. Furthermore, Petitioner No.2 was made to sign on dotted lines and was told to confess the crime, failing which the officials of the Respondent wo