IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.38607 of 2025

Dated:17.12.2025

Between:

M/s. Miles Education Private Limited

and another. …Petitioners

and

Union of India,

Represented by Secretary,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,

North Block, Rashtrapati Bhawan,

New Delhi – 110 001,

and another.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Avinash Desai,

representing learned counsel Sri Girjesh Patidar, appears

for the petitioners.

Learned counsel Sri B.Mukherjee, representing Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for respondent No.1.

Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondent No.2.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present writ petition essentially raises grievance of recording of statements of petitioner No.2 beyond office hours by respondent No.2 pursuant to the summons issued by respondent No.2 under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, during the course of investigation.

4. Factually, allegations have been made that respondent No.2 restrained petitioner No.2 from leaving his office and continued the recording of statements till midnight. Summons to appear on the next date were issued on the same date. In this background, certain decisions rendered by the other jurisdictional High Courts like the High Court of Bombay in FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 79, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Shiva Kumar Deora v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1956 and a decision of this Court in M/s. Agarwal Foundries Private Limited Rama Towers v. Union of India (W.P.No.28268 of 2019, dated 06.11.2020) have been relied upon. It is submitted that these decisions lay down certain guidelines for interrogation of the summoned person and that too within office hours. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and the concerned Directors are ready to abide by the summons and cooperate in the investigation process, but as per the instructions of the department and the guidelines rendered by the High Courts in similar matters.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, on instructions, has endeavoured to explain that the recording of statements of petitioner No.2 went beyond the office hours on his own request as he had to leave to Bangalore. It is further submitted that when the recording of statements could not be concluded, summons to appear on the next date were issued. He, however, submits that in other circumstances, the officials adhere to the office hours for the purposes of recording the statements of the summoned persons. He also submits that the principles laid down in Instruction No.03/2022-23 (GST- Investigation) dated 17.08.2022 issued by the GST-Investigation Wing, will be scrupulously followed in the case of the noticees in respect of the investigation carried out against the petitioner company. He further submits that the summons have been issued upon the other Directors to appear on 16.12.2025 and 17.12.2025, since petitioner No.2 did not appear on 13.12.2025. He submits that in his place, the Advocate appeared who claimed ignorance about the affairs of the company.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. More or less, the factual assertions made by the petitioners have been answered on instructions by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC. We, therefore, do not intend to delve further on the correctness of the submissions made at this stage, since the process of investigation has gone ahead by summoning of other Directors. We only reiterate the principles laid down with regard to recording of statements of summoned persons in the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Courts in substance that the recording of statements should be done w