Sri Avinash Goyal Vs the Additional Assistant Director — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri Avinash Goyal Vs the Additional Assistant Director — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief of quashing the S.70 CGST summons dated 22.01.2025, or of return of seized documents (Annexures-B, B1, E), or of mandamus to furnish documents/consider the 25.12.2024 representation was granted. The writ petition stands disposed with the operative direction that the petitioner appear before Respondent No.1 and answer the summons on 22.09.2025 at 03.00 p.m., all contentions kept open and liberty reserved to approach appropriate fora, including for protective orders.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 (F.No.AE/MIS/126/2024-GR; CBIC DIN 202501DSS6000000ED1B dated 22.01.2025, Annexure-F) are without authority and jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and liable to be quashed by certiorari. +3 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the first respondent – Additional Assistant Director, DGGI, Vishakapatnam and answer the summons on 22.09.2025 at 03.00 p.m.

Key takeaways

Keeping all contentions open, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate fora in the event of need; the Authority was asked to bear in mind counsel's submissions and regulate its procedure thereafter.obiter¶53
On the petitioner's apprehension of being taken into custody upon appearing before the Authority, the Court observed that it is always open to him to seek protective orders before the appropriate forum.obiter¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), W.P. No. 2029 of 2025 (T-RES), disposed on 04.09.2025 — Petitioner, Managing Director of a company against which GST Intelligence (DGGI) conducted search and seizure at Visakhapatnam (Panchnama drawn, several materials seized), challenged a summons issued under S.70 CGST Act, 2017 (F.No.AE/MIS/126/2024-GR; CBIC DIN 202501DSS6000000ED1B dated 22.01.2025, Annexure-F) seeking certiorari as being without authority/jurisdiction and violative of natural justice, and mandamus for return of seized documents (Annexures-B, B1, E) after true copies, furnishing of specific documents with reasons and consideration of his representation dated 25.12.2024 (Annexure-J1). The Court did not quash the summons. Noting the petitioner had not appeared even once despite successive summonses (fifth in line, per respondents' counsel), the Court directed him to appear before the first respondent – Additional Assistant Director, DGGI, Visakhapatnam on 22.09.2025 at 03.00 p.m. and answer the summons; the Authority to bear in mind the submissions of counsel and regulate its procedure thereafter; respondents' counsel stated that information would be furnished subject to S.67(5) of the Act; on apprehension of custody, liberty reserved to seek protective orders before the appropriate forum; all contentions kept open; writ petition disposed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34722 WP No. 2029 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2029 OF 2025 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI AVINASH GOYAL AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O TARACHAND GOYAL MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ROLLWELL CONVEYOR PRIVATE LIMITED BRIGADE RUBIX, NO.204, NO.20 HMT WATCH FACTORY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 013.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY MS. VEENA J.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI JAGADISHCHANDRA KAMATH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE

VISHAKAPATNAM ZONAL UNIT DOOR NO.28-14-17, SURYA BAGH BESIDE MELODY THEATRE VISHAKAPATNAM – 530 020.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34722 WP No. 2029 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT 112, S.P. ENCLAVE ADJACENT TO KARNATAKA BANK K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MADHU N.RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 70 OF THE CGST ACT 2017 BEARING F.NO. AE/MIS/126/2024-GR, J- 0/O ADG-DGGI-ZU-VSKP, CBIC- DIN 202501DSS6000000ED1B DTD. 22.01.2025 AS PER ANNX-F BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AS IT IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; DIRECT THE R-1 TO RETURN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AFTER MAKING TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PETITIONER PREMISES AS PER ANNX-B, B1 AND E BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34722 WP No. 2029 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

prayer:

“a) Quash the proceedings initiated by the 1^st Respondent under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, bearing F.No.AE/MIS/126/2024-G R, J-O/o ADG-DGGI-ZU-VSKP CBIC DIN 202501DSS6000000ED1B dated 22.01.2025 as per Annexure - F by issuing a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit as it is without authority and jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice;

b) Direct the 1^st Respondent to return the seized documents after making true copies of the documents seized from the Petitioner's premises as per Annexure B, B1 and E by issuing a Writ of Mandamus;

c) Direct the 1^st Respondent to provide specific documents that may be required along with reasons and also consider the Petitioner's representation dated 25.12.2024 at Annexure J1 and permit production of any documents through its authorized representatives in respect of any investigation conducted, in accordance with law by Respondents by issuing a Writ of Mandamus;

d) Grant any other relief as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.”

Heard Ms. Veena J. Kamath, learned counsel for

Sri Jagadishchandra Kamath K., learned counsel for petitioner

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34722 WP No. 2029 of 2025

HC-KAR

and Sri Madhu N. Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

The petitioner claims to be the Managing Director of a Company against which, a search and seizure is conducted by the Goods and Services Tax – Intelligence (for short ‘the Authority’). The seizure happens at the office of the petitioner at Vishakapatnam. Panchnama is drawn by seizing several materials. Pursuant to which, a summons comes to be issued on 22.11.2024 under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’). Sri Madhu N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would now add that this summons is fifth in line. The petitioner does not appear. Another summons, impugned, in the subject petition, is issued to the petitioner to appear at the Bangalore office on 23.01.2025. Even then, the petitioner has not appeared. The petitioner is now wanting to know what is the case against him for him to appear and answer the summons.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would stress upon the fact that the petitioner is not aware as to why he is being summoned repeatedly, while the petitioner does not

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34722 WP No. 2029 of 2025

HC-KAR

appear before the Officer even once. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to appear before the Authority.

Sri Madhu N. Rao, learned counsel for respondents

submits that if the petitioner would appear, in terms of law, what the petitioner would need, would be furnished. He would qualify his statement that information to the petitioner would be furnished, subject to the conditions stipulated, under Section 67(5) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be taken into custody, at the time, he appears before the Authority for answering the summons. If that be so, it is always open to the petitioner to seek protective orders before the appropriate forum.

Therefore, keeping all contentions open, I deem it appropriate, directing the petitioner to appear before the first respondent – Additional Assistant Director, Vishakapatnam and answer the summons, on 22.09.2025 at 03.00 p.m . The Authority shall bear in mind the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:34722 WP No. 2029 of 2025

HC-KAR

respondents, to regulate its procedure thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the

appropriate fora in the event of need.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ

petition stands disposed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:SS