JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

(1) Heard Mr. Sameer Gupta, Mr. Prashant Verma, Mr. Siddharth Nandwani, learned Counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Counsel representing the respondent No.1, Mr. Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel representing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs/respondent Nos.2, 3 and Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned Standing Counsel representing the Directorate of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence.

(2) The petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax dated 01.07.2017 primarily on the ground of it being ultra-vires to the power of the Central Government. A further challenge has been laid to the jurisdiction of the Additional Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence in authorizing the other Intelligence Officer to carry out inspection/search proceedings at the premises of the petitioner under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act, 2017’). A consequential challenge has also been made by the petitioner to the issuance of summons dated 06.06.2023 and 14.06.2023 issued by the Intelligence Officer under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 as it has been alleged to have been issued without authority of law. Other issue of an amount of Rs. 40 Lakhs having been deposited under coercion has been raised by the petitioner in the instant petition.

(3) The facts of the present case as is pleaded in the writ petition can be capitulated briefly by stating that the petitioner is a partnership firm registered under Goods and Services Tax having GSTIN 09AAYFR5496BIZH and is engaged in the business of work contract services. The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (hereinafter referred as ‘DGSI’), who had reasons to believe that documents related to search were secreted at the premises of the petitioner, authorized Intelligence Officers (arrayed as respondent Nos. 5 to 8) to conduct inspection/search at the premises of the petitioner on 06.06.2023 under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017, wherein a punchnama of the said inspection/search was also got prepared by the authority.

(4) It is the case of the petitioner that although during the aforesaid inspection/search, the Intelligence Officer of DGSI were apprised about an ongoing enquiry being conducted by the Anti Evasion Wing of CGST and apparently a summon dated 16.05.2023 had also been issued by the said Anti Evasion Wing for the period November, 2018 to March, 2023, however, the petitioner was coerced to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-under the threat of arrest by the said officers of DGSI, who also issued summon dated 06.06.2023 under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and called for the following information :-

“(i) Ledger of purchase and sale for the period November 2018 to till date;

(ii) Ledger of ITC and details of ITC available for the period November, 2018 to till date;

(iii) Bank statement for the period November 2018 to till date.”

(5) Although, the petitioner had raised a preliminary objection to the issuance of the aforesaid summons without the DIN number as being in violation of Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST dated 05.11.2019, however, this Court finds that the said objection does not exist presently as it has been submitted by the petitioner that subsequently, the respondent rectified the said objection by issuance of a fresh summons dated 14.06.2023 and directing the same set of information/documents from the petitioner, to which again an objection was raised by the petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction, as according to him the same set of documents have already been furnished to the Anti Evasion Wing of GST and now asking of the same set of documents by the officers of DGSI was not legal on the ground of exercise of parallel jurisdiction.

(6) Learned Counsel for the petitio