AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER : SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
“I. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, calling for the records and quashing the impugned Summons dated 30.07.2026, 27.07.2026, 21.04.2026, 20.03.2026, 28.02.2026 issued by State GST Authorities under Section 70 of the CGST/SGST/UTGST = Act, 2017 (Annexure No.2.Colly, page no.62 to 75)
II. Issue a writ of prohibition / mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, restraining the State GST Authorities from issuing further repeated/repetitive summonses under Section 70 of the Act for documents already submitted or seized by Respondents on 05.12.2024 and thereafter via multiple search and Seizures proceedings.
III. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State GST Authorities to cease arbitrary, extra-jurisdictional parallel proceedings and coordinate with the jurisdictional Central GST Authorities in terms of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act;
IV. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to take any coercive steps, force recovery of tax, or effect arrest of the Petitioner without issuing a formal Show Cause Notice and passing a statutory determination order under Section 73 or Section 74 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017.
V. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to enable/allow the Petitioner to file its Annual GST Return (GSTR-9/9C) for the Financial Year 2025-2026 on the GST Portal, capture/reconcile the legally entitled Input Tax Credit (ITC), and process the refund of any excess amount that persists after due reconciliation;
VI. Declare that recoveries, made without passing demand orders under Section 73/74 are illegal and void.
VII. Direct the Respondents to refund/adjust excess recoveries made from the Petitioner.
VIII. issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The case of the petitioner is that on 21.01.2026, a search was conducted under Section 67(2) of the Central GST Act, 2017 at the business premises of the petitioner and in which various records and books of account were seized. Earlier, an audit was also conducted under Section 65 of the Act. Simultaneously, the State GST has started issuing notice to the petitioner under Section 70 of the Act. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Department had succeeded in getting various amounts deposited from him under coercion, although there is no adverse order against the petitioner. The issuance of repeated notices to the petitioner amounts to him harassment.
It appears from the record that the petitioner has responded to the notices on 06.08.2026 stating that at the time of inspection of his business premises, 12 files were taken by the CIU in its custody and there is mention about the same in the Panchnama also. He had also enclosed copies of the documents with his reply.
Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the writ petition is premature, as no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner so far. It is also submitted that the contention that the petitioner was coerced to deposit any amount is incorrect. According to the Revenue, there is an order of adjudication passed under Section 73 of the Act against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2021-22 and the Department is within its right to call for information and documents in exercise of its power under Section 70 of the Act.
By the impugned notices, the Department is only seeking information and documents from the petitioner and in reply whereof, the petitioner has given a representation dated 06.08.2026. There is no evidence on record that the Department is coercing the petitioner to make any deposit or there is any threat of arrest.
In our considered opinion, the writ petition is premature and it is, accordingly, dismissed.