Notices issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act must be specific and comply with Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. before any arrest under Section 69; procedural safeguards are essential.

ORDER

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘ Cr.P.C .’) to quash the proceedings in summons dated 15.06.2024 passed by the Office of the Commissioner, Secunderabad CGST Commissionerate.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that petitioner No.2 is a company and petitioner No.1 is the Director of petitioner No.2-company in all the cases. On 07.06.2024, the respondent issued notice to petitioner No.1 under Section 70 of CGST Act directing him to appear before the respondent on 10.06.2024 to produce the details of invoices pertaining to inward and outward supplies of petitioner No.2 companies. But the notice was not handed over to petitioner No.1 as he was out of station. On the same day i.e., 07.06.2024, without any prior notice, the respondent and his staff visited petitioner No.2-Company, seized the entire material. The same was informed to petitioner No.1 on 13.06.2024 and handed over the notice to him and directed to furnish the invoices of inward and outward supplies and receipt of payments pertaining to the supplies. Immediately on the very same day i.e., on 13.06.2024, petitioner No.1 sent an email to the respondent and requested to provide a backup of the documents and the computers seized from the company to enable him and to give reply to the notice. Further, petitioner No.1 also requested for extension of time for his non-appearance on 10.06.2024 before the concerned authority.

4. Subsequently, on 15.06.2024, the respondent issued notice directing petitioner No.1 to appear on 19.06.2024 and on the same day, petitioner No.1 sent email to the respondent requesting to provide the documents and the entire material and computers, which were seized on 07.06.2024. Challenging the said notices the petitioners filed the present criminal petition.

5. Heard Sri K. S. Suneel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notices issued under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 is vague, incomplete and lack of necessary particulars with regard to production of documents and evidence. Further, it is pertinent to note that on 07.06.2024, the respondent has inspected the premises of petitioner No.2-company and seized the entire records, computer systems along with data and cash amounting to Rs.83,85,860/- ( out of which it is alleged that Rs.77,14,000/- were banned Rs.2,000/- notes). As per the order of seizure in form GST-INS-02 exercising powers under Section 67(2) of CGST Act, 2017 , read with Rule 139 (2) is illegal and not in accordance with the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 . Further, the entire records including the computer systems of all the companies were seized under seizure panchanama and issued notices under Section 70 of the CGST Act, which is not in accordance with law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that earlier in the year 2019, the same situation was faced by petitioner No.1 regarding the same company, wherein in those matters, after receipt of the notices, petitioner No.1 sincerely appeared. Without looking into the provisions of Section 132 of CGST Act and without considering the applicability of 41-A Cr.P.C ., petitioner No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Later, petitioner No.1 was enlarged on bail in all those cases by way of common order in case No.F.No.INV/DGGI/HZU/GST/147/2018-19, PF-2 (Legal) (RSGB). Despite the fact of the said case, n