Writ Challenging GST Summons and Seizure Premature As Inquiry Not Concluded

Case Details: Md. Aniqul Islam vs. Directorate of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 696 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Ms Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Ms Manisha Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner.
Anurag Ojha, SSC, Priyatam, Dipak Raj & Ms Garima Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners comprised a GST-registered trader of bidi and a GST-registered manufacturer-supplier. The trader purchased finished goods against valid tax invoices, made payments via banking channels, and filed GST returns for the relevant period. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) conducted searches of the trader’s premises and seized goods. Summons were issued to the trader, including references to an unrelated entity, which the trader denied. The DGGI searched the manufacturer’s premises, verified stock against records, and issued summons. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, were issued solely for information-gathering in an inquiry and did not constitute commencement of proceedings. It was emphasised that statutory safeguards existed before coercive action, including reasons to believe and communication of grounds. It was held that even after searches, the Department of Revenue must either issue a notice on the merits or drop the matter. The writ petitions were therefore premature, lacked merit, and were dismissed, with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

List of Cases Referred to

Tarun Jain v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) [2023] 155 taxmann.com 264 (Delhi) (para 15)
Radhika Agarwal v. UOI [2025] 171 taxmann.com 832/95 GSTL 225 (SC) (para 16)
Makemytrip (India) (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2016] 73 taxmann.com 31/58 GST 397/[2016] 96 VST 37 (Delhi) (para 19)
Cleartrip (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [Writ Petition No. 1088 of 2016, dated 25-1-2016] (Bom.) (para 19)
Jayachandran Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Salem [2019] 105 taxmann.com 245/76 GST 329/25 GSTL 321 (Madras) (para 20)
Akhil Krishan Maggu v. Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence [2019] 111 taxmann.com 367/[2020] 77 GST 279/[2019] 32 GSTL 516 (Punjab & Haryana) (para 20)
Ram Ramaswamy v. UOI [W.P. (CRL) No. 138/2021, dated 14.12.2023] (para 24)
Ashwani Oberoi v. State of Haryana [SLP (Crl.) 8695 of 2021, dated 28.05.2024] (para 25)
Suraj Vijay Agarwal vs. State of Maharashtra [SLP (Crl.) 8432 of 2023, dated 21.08.2023] (para 26)
Arun Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [SLP (Crl.) No. 1649 of 2024, dated 01.03.2024] (para 26)
Jatin Gupta v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence Unit Delhi [2023:DHC:6165] (para 32)
Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra [2024] 161 taxmann.com 738/104 GST 529/86 GSTL 142 (Bombay) (para 33)
State of Gujarat v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer [2023] 152 taxmann.com 522/99 GST 253/76 GSTL 146 (SC) (para 35)
Armour Security India Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST Delhi East Commisionerate [2025] 171 taxmann.com 658/108 GST 855/96 GSTL 10 (Delhi) (para 52)
Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [2025] 177 taxmann.com 478/111 GST 400/101 GSTL 289 (SC) (para 53)
Kuppan Gounder P.G. Natarajan v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence [2022] 143 taxmann.com 289/[2023] 95 GST 341/[2022] 58 GSTL 292 (Madras) (para 54)
G.K. Trading Company v. Union of India [2021] 126 taxmann.com 211/51 GSTL 288 (Allahabad) (para 56).