AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justlce P.Sam Koshgy)
Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms Sarampally Mrudula, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P.Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.1, both appearing through online, and perused the record.
The instant Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
“...to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in conducting actions under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and subjecting the Petitioner to the treat of coercive actions and arrest even without following the procedure under Section 69 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and without serving a coy of the order on the Petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sunil Biyani (2026) SCC Online Sc 1544, and further direct the Respondents not to conduct any actions without following the procedure under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the Petitioner with reasonable time thereafter to avail the remedies as also arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional pass such other order(s) that hihs Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case.”
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Sunil Biyani1 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the manner in which an arrest has to be made, if at all the Officers of the GST Department are supposed to exercise their power of arrest. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the provision of Section 69 of the CGST Act requiring service of the copy of the order on the concerned person granting reasonable time before the order of arrest is executed.
Sri M.P.Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has made a categorical statement that let there not be any apprehension on the mind of the petitioner that the authorities would act contrary to the provisions of Section 69 of the CGST Act. He further submits that in the course of the proceedings being drawn by the CGST authorities, due adherence shall be made to the provisions of Section 69 of the Act.
Given the said submissions of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, we see no reason why the petitioner should have any apprehension.
At this juncture, we dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, directing the respondents-authorities to ensure that all the proceedings initiated must adhere to the provisions of the CGST Act. If at all the respondents-authorities want the petitioner to be arrested, in that event, the provisions of Section 69 of the Act shall be strictly adhered to.
With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.2026) SCC Online SC 1544