ORDER :

Heard on stay applications for interim relief filed by the petitioners namely, Prakash Chandra Purohit in Civil Writ Petition No.2750/2022 and petitioner namely, M.L. Paliwal in Civil Writ Petition No.2751/2022.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in the aforesaid two petitions have prayed for interim protection against an apprehended action of arrest pursuant to the proceedings initiated by Director General of GST Intelligence and its offices in the matter of alleged evasion of GST.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the two petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been issued summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’) to appear before the GST authorities, even though these two petitioners have no role to play in the alleged evasion of GST, in the course of manufacturing activities and other business activities of M/s. Miraj Products Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. MPPL’), nor they have any iota of involvement in the alleged clandestine supply of packaging material involving M/s. MPPL and/or M/s. Montage Packaging Sales Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. MPSPL’). It is submitted that earlier Director of M/s. MPPL, namely, Shri Vinay Kant Ameta was issued summons and when he appeared, he arrested and harassed until he was granted bail by the Court. Later on, some other arrests have been made, which show that the respondent authorities are bent upon harassing not only those who are involved in the manufacturing and other business activities of M/s. MPPL, but also others like the petitioners who have no connection whatsoever in the alleged clandestine supply and evasion of GST.

4. Number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and High Courts are cited at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners to impress upon this Court that in the absence of any prima facie material even requiring issuance of summons and the manner in which the respondent authorities are engaged in wild goose chase, the petitioners may be protected against any arrest till these petitions are decided by the Court, otherwise the purpose of filing these petitions would be frustrated.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would argue that the petitions are based on apprehension which has no basis. They would submit that the petitioners have rushed to the Court at this stage when only summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act have been issued. It is argued that the respondents are holding investigation into serious allegation of tax evasion. They would submit that acting upon an intelligent input that M/s. MPSPL is indulged in racket of huge GST evasion with hand holding of various tobacco manufacturing units including M/s. MPPL by way of clandestine supply of packaging material under the cover of invoices issued to various fake firms registered either in Rajasthan or in Gujarat, simultaneous searches were carried out by the officers of DGGI, JZO, Jaipur at various places related to M/s. MPSPL, M/s. MPPL and M/s. Montage Enterprises Private Limited, Haridwar on 22.04.2021 and during the course of search several incriminating documents were seized.

6. He would submit that during the course of investigation so far carried out, materials have been disclosed bearing involvement of the two petitioners relating to various transactions also in the aforesaid affairs. Therefore, it has become necessary to record the statements of these two petitioners. He would submit that the authorities have jurisdiction under the law to issue such summons and the petitioners are duty bound to cooperate with the investigation. With regard to the apprehension that the petitioners would be unnecessarily arrested, it is argued that it has no basis because though large number of persons alleged to be involved in the business to the aforesaid companies were issued summons, but only some of them were arrested and o