1. Writ Petition bearing No.1710/2024 under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner Md. Aniqul Islam, to challenge Summons dated 06.05.2024 issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as „CGST Act, 2017‟).

2. Brief facts are that Petitioner is engaged into a small-scale business to supply „Bidi‟ since 2020 in some pockets of East Delhi. He is registered with GST having Registration No.07CFIPM2676H2Z4. He purchased finished stocks of Bidi from M/s Nila Biri Factory, Village Dohabari, West Bengal, who are the manufacturer of bidi with the Brand name of „Udaan‟, through proper Tax Invoices during Financial Years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25, which are as under:

3. Petitioner submits that the payments were made through banking channels, details of which have been mentioned in the year-wise Ledger. No other purchase was made from any other Suppliers, by the Petitioner.

4. On 22.03.2024, a Search and Survey was carried out from 10:54 AM till 06:15PM., at the premises of the Petitioner located at Gali No.2, New Shastri Park, Delhi, by the Officers from the Office of DGGI, Zonal Unit Delhi. A panchnama and Order of Seizure under Rule 139(3) in Form GST INS02 dated 22.03.2024 was prepared by Sh. Rajpal, Intelligence Officer under his signature along with two other witnesses. As per the panchnama, goods worth Rs.7,22,500/- were seized by the Respondent / Officials of DGGI, Delhi. The reason of seizure and confiscation mentioned in the panchnama is that the Invoices of the said stock, were not provided.

5. The Petitioner was called to join investigations during this search, but he was not available at the time when the search began at 10:54 AM. He reached at 02:20 PM and fully cooperated with the Officers.

6. On the same day, i.e. 22.03.2024, Summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 without a DIN number, was issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer to the Petitioner, to appear on same day at 04:30 PM.

7. This Summons dated 22.03.2024 is claimed to be contrary to the panchnama dated 22.03.2024, as the Petitioner was with the Officers of the Respondent and co-operated through out. There was no purpose of issuing Summon under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017, to appear at 04:30 PM. In fact, this Summon was an afterthought and was a violation of the procedure to be followed by the GST Officers, of giving Notice prior to carrying out any search. In order to cover up, the said Summon dated 22.03.2024 was served.

8. Md. Aniqul Islam was shocked to receive another summon dated 06.05.2024 (signed on 03.05.2024) seeking presence of the Petitioner on 08.05.2024, in connection with the goods seized on 22.03.2024; however, linking this to an entity namely M/s Aarti Traders. Petitioner claims to be not even remotely connected with M/s Aarti Traders. It is claimed that this summon dated 06.05.2024 is issued with an ulterior