ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1. Ordinarily, no litigant would come to the High Court questioning the legality and validity of a summons issued by any authority under any particular enactment, asking him to remain present before him on a particular day and date for the purpose of inquiry, interrogation or adducing of evidence. However, over a period of time, the imminent threat of being arrested at the end of the interrogation and the harsh treatment at times has led to filing of the writ-applications in different High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the summons on the ground that the authority has no jurisdiction.

2. The present writ-application is also one of the types referred to above and it is very apparent that the writ-applicant has a fear in his mind that if he would appear before the DGGSTI he may be arrested, and that is the reason why he has come before this Court with the present writ-application.

3. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs :

“(A) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the investigation bearing F.No.DGGI/AZU/Gr.A/12(4)/118/2019-20 issued by Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad; and/or (B) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the summons dated 21.10.2019, 27.11.2019 and 23.11.2020 issued by Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad; and/or (C) To grant an ex-parte, ad-interim order in favour of the petitioner, staying the proceedings of the impugned investigation bearing F.No.DGGI/AZU/Gr.A/12(4)/118/ 2019-20 and stay of any coercive action, during the pendency of the matter;

(D) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper; and (E) To provide for the costs of this petition.”

4. This Court passed the following order on 22nd December

2020 :

“1. We have heard Ms.Anjali Manish, the learned counsel assisted by Mr.Chetan Pandya, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant.

2. It appears that the writ applicant is the sole proprietor of a proprietary concern running in the name of M/s. S. H. Exports having its office and place of business at New Delhi. It is pointed out that the proprietary firm has been registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the CGST Act, 2017”) at Delhi and is under the jurisdictional control of the Central Excise and Service Tax, Central Tax Delhi South. It appears from the materials on record that the office of the Delhi South Commissionerate has initiated some investigation against the writ applicant. Summons in the past were issued to the writ applicant under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 by the office of the Delhi South Commissionerate. The learned counsel would submit that her client has abided by the summons issued in the past by the Delhi South Commissionerate and various documents have been taken in custody by the office of the Delhi South Commissionerate. 3. The cause of action in filing this writ application is the summons received by the writ applicant from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. The argument canvassed is that the proper officer under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 is the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Delhi South Commissionerate, who not only issued summons to the writ applicant under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, but also granted the permission to search the business premises of the writ applicant on the basis of his reasonable belief. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad ought not to have issued any summons under Section 70 of the