A statutory summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act for investigation purposes cannot be quashed unless there is a demonstrated illegality, and mere apprehension of arrest or payment of taxes does not exempt a person from the obligation to appear.

Order

Heard Mr. N.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1 and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs appearing for respondents No.2 to 5.

2. The matter has been taken up on urgent mentioning today on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being repeatedly summoned by the respondent No.5. There is an apprehension of arrest without any reasons though the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation. There are no outstanding dues left against him as the amount adjudged in the proceeding under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’) against the company has already been paid.

3. The petitioner claims to have submitted several documents after appearing before the authority on 24.11.2025. The other officials of the company are also being summoned. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026.

4. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Bhagyanagar India Limited, who was earlier summoned to appear on 13.11.2025. The impugned summons dated 02.04.2026 is only the second summons issued by respondent No.5- Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), upon the petitioner to appear before him today at 11:00 a.m., to give oral evidence in relation to improper availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the supplies made by M/s.AMZ Traders and the role of management in proper verification and continuation of dealings with M/s.AMZ Traders.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for CBIC, on instructions, submits that the petitioner, instead of appearing in person today, has sent an Email at 10:40 a.m., that he is leaving the city on some urgent work. The other official, who was summoned, also did not appear yesterday on the ground of attending some court work. It is submitted that Section 70 of the CGST Act empowers the authorities conducting investigation to summon the persons connected with or in capacity to give evidence on the subject matter of investigation. Petitioner has not made out any illegality in issuance of the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026. Unless the materials are collected from the persons summoned in connection with the subject matter of investigation, the DGGI would not be able to conclude the investigation in a proper manner.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances noted above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026. Petitioner is under obligation to appear before respondent No.5 in pursuance of the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026, issued in exercise of statutory powers under Section 70 of the CGST Act in the course of investigation of improper availment of ITC for the supplies made by M/s.AMZ Traders. Since the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026 is only the second summons, we do not find any basis for the petitioner’s apprehension as expressed above.

7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.