The Delhi High Court addressed a case involving Md. Aniqul Islam and another party against the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) concerning summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The DGGI initiated an investigation into alleged tax evasion and clandestine trading, issuing summons to the petitioners as part of this process. The petitioners contested these summonses, citing procedural violations and expressing concern over potential arrest, seeking to have them quashed through writ jurisdiction.
The central issue was whether the summons under Section 70 could be quashed during the investigation stage. The High Court determined that the issuance of summons under Section 70 is a legitimate part of the statutory investigative process and does not inherently violate any legal rights. The Court emphasized that interfering at this stage could significantly disrupt tax administration and impede the statutory inquiry process.
Read More: GST - Delhi High Court: Sabka Vishwas Scheme benefit not available for SCNs issued after the cut-off date [Order attached]
The Court noted that the GST law provides sufficient safeguards before any coercive measures, such as arrest, can be executed. As a result, the Court dismissed the writ petitions as premature, suggesting that the petitioners could pursue appropriate remedies if adverse actions were taken against them in the future.
Parties: Md. Aniqul Islam & Another vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Date: 16 December 2025
Facts:
- DGGI initiated investigation alleging tax evasion and clandestine trading.
- Summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act were issued to the petitioners.
- The petitioners challenged the summons alleging procedural violations and apprehension of arrest.
- They sought quashing of summons through writ jurisdiction.
Issue:
- Whether summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act can be quashed at the investigation stage?
Order:
- The High Court held that issuance of summons under Section 70 is a statutory investigative power and does not, by itself, infringe any legal right.
- It observed that interference at the investigation stage would seriously hamper tax administration and frustrate the statutory inquiry process.
- The Court clarified that adequate safeguards exist under GST law before any coercive action, including arrest, can be taken.
- Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as premature, while observing that appropriate remedies may be availed if adverse action is taken subsequently.
