1. Challenging the summons issued by the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘CGST Act’) and the invocation of the penal provisions under Section 69 of the Act, the Directors (Past and/or present) of a few Private Limited Companies, a Chief Financial Officer of a company and the Partner of a Partnership Firm have come up with the above writ petitions.

2. We have heard Mr. R. Raghunandan Rao and Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

Facts in brief

3. Since the facts out of which these writ petitions arise, differ marginally from each other, we shall bring out the facts of each case separately:

(i) Brief facts in WP No. 4764 of 2019:

The petitioner in this writ petition is the Managing Director of a Company, by name, Infinity Metals Products India Limited, engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. The Company is a listed company. A search was conducted in the premises of the Company by the officials of the GST Commissionerate on 27.02.2019 and a summon dated 27.02.2019 was issued to the petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act calling upon the petitioner to appear on 28.02.2019, to give evidence truthfully on the matters concerning the enquiry. According to the petitioner, he was traveling on an urgent work on 27.02.2019 and hence, he made a request to grant time for appearing and cooperating with the investigation. But a second summon dated 01.03.2019 was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 05.03.2019. The petitioner admittedly did not appear on 05.03.2019, but gave a letter seeking two weeks time. Therefore, a third summon dated 05.03.2019 was issued calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 07.03.2019 with a threat that prosecution would be launched if he failed to do so. Challenging the said summon, which was the third summon (dated 05.03.2019), WP No. 4764 of 2019 is filed.

(ii) Brief Facts in WP No. 4769 of 2019:

The petitioner in this writ petition is the Managing Director of another Public Limited Company known as Sujana Universal Industries Limited, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing Iron and Steel products. A search was conducted in the premises of the said company on 27.02.2019 and a summon under Section 70 of the Act was issued on 27.02.2019 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 27.02.2019 at 5.00 p.m. According to the petitioner, he appeared in the office of the Superintendent (Anti Evasion) at 5.00 p.m. on 27.02.2019 and he was questioned till about 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, he was asked to come back at 9.00 p.m. and it is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry which started at 9.00 p.m., on 27.02.2019 continued till 4.00 a.m. on 28.02.2019. Though he was directed to appear again in the afternoon of 28.02.2019, he could not appear as his health suffered a setback. Therefore, the petitioner claims to have given a letter dated 28.02.2019 seeking time till 04.03.2019. Even according to the petitioner he did not appear on 04.03.2019, but came up with the above writ petition challenging the summon issued on 27.02.2019.

(iii) Brief Facts in WP No. 4892 of 2019:

The petitioner in this writ petition is a Director of a Private Limited Company, by name, Hindustan Ispat Private Limited, engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. A search of the premises of the company was conducted on 27.02.2019 and a summon dated 27.02.2019 was served, calling upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry. According to the petitioner, the staff of the company appeared for the enquiry and cooperated with the authorities. However, the petitioner claims to have found, after returning to Hyderabad on 07.03.2019, the summon dated 27.02.2019 pasted on the door of his residence. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the above writ pet