Facts: The petitioner, Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that his arrest by respondent No.4 was null and void, and sought compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention. He claimed he was taken into custody by GST officers without summons on 17.06.2025, detained illegally until 20.06.2025, and formally arrested on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the summons issued to him was without jurisdiction and fabricated, and that he was entitled to a 7-day notice before being summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The respondents contended that the petitioner was summoned as a witness to record his statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with fraudulent utilization of Input Tax Credit, and that he attended voluntarily until his arrest on 21.06.2025.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, as a Criminal Writ Petition challenging the legality of the petitioner's arrest and seeking compensation for alleged illegal detention.
Issue: (1) Whether the petitioner's detention from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 amounted to illegal detention. (2) Whether a 7-day notice is required before issuing summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. (3) Whether Section 69 and 70 of the GST Acts are constitutionally valid.
Holding: (1) The petitioner was not under illegal detention from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025. (2) A 7-day notice is not required before issuing summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. (3) The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the GST Acts is rejected. The petition was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioner willingly attended the inquiry after being summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act and did not raise any objections during that period. Section 70 of the CGST Act, which empowers officers to summon persons for inquiry, does not prescribe a 7-day notice period. The Court distinguished the applicability of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, which relates to summoning witnesses at the stage of trial, and affirmed that Section 70 summons are for inquiry purposes. The court also upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 69 and 70 of the GST Acts, stating that the power to summon and arrest is ancillary to the power to levy and collect GST under Article 246-A of the Constitution. The court noted that judicial intervention is warranted only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the arrest is prima facie malafide or in contravention of the statute, which was not the case here.