The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Let’s See Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(C) No. 719 of 2026, order dated February 17, 2026] held that although the statutory power under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits summoning any person including company directors during inquiry, such power must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with administrative fairness, and the Court may examine whether the summons is arbitrary.
Facts:
Let’s See Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Lohit Sharma (“the Petitioner”) invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the summons issued to the second petitioner under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The Union of India, the Principal Commissioner, and the Superintendent of GST (“the Respondent”) issued summons requiring the second petitioner, who is a Director of the Petitioner company, to appear and produce documents during the course of investigation.
The Petitioner contended that, the company had already been cooperating with the investigation through an authorized representative, who is also a Director. Summoning the Director repeatedly under the circumstances amounted to harassment.
The summons was contrary to CBIC’s Instruction No. 02/2022-23 [GST – Investigation] dated August 17, 2022, as no reasons or satisfaction were recorded before repeatedly calling the Director.
The Respondent contended that the proper officer is empowered under Section 70 of the CGST Act to summon any person whose attendance is necessary to give evidence or produce documents during inquiry.
The Petitioner further submitted that even after the Court granted interim protection on February 10, 2026, another communication was issued requiring the Director to submit extensive documents including details of movable and immovable properties, contracts, engagement letters with chartered accountants, and balance sheets of the Directors for the past five years, which according to the Petitioner demonstrated the intention of the authorities to harass them despite cooperation in the investigation.
Aggrieved by the issuance of summons and the subsequent communication, the Petitioners approached the High Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking relief against alleged harassment and arbitrary exercise of power under Section 70 of the CGST Act.
Issue:
Whether summons issued to a Director of a company under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction when the company claims to have cooperated through an authorized representative and alleges violation of administrative guidelines.
Held:
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 719 of 2026 held as under:
- Observed that, Section 70 of the CGST Act empowers a proper officer to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce documents in any inquiry.
- Noted that, a Director of a company is not insulated from inquiry merely because the company has nominated a representative to appear before the authorities.
- Observed that, there is no provision under the CGST statute similar to Section 305 Cr.P.C. / Section 342 of the BNSS, 2023 which permits representation of a company through a representative during inquiry.
- Observed that, whether a Director possesses knowledge relevant to the inquiry is a matter to be determined by the investigating authority and such assessment ordinarily cannot be substituted by the writ court.
- Noted that, when summons issued under Section 70 is challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court must examine whether the summons is without jurisdiction, issued for an oblique purpose, constitutes abuse of power, or amounts to harassment.
- Observed that, CBIC’s Instruction No. 02/2022-23 [GST – Investigation] dated August 17, 2022 is an administrative advisory intended to regulate the exercise of power under Section 70 and emphasizes that summons should not be issued mechanically to senior management officials such as Managing Directors and Directors and that due care must be taken to avoid unnecessary harassment.
- Noted that, the circular reinforces the standard of administrative fairness but cannot curtail the statutory power under Section 70; however, demonstrable infraction of the circular resulting in arbitrariness may justify judicial review under Article 226.
- Directed that, since the summons date had already expired and an interim order had earlier been granted, the Respondent authorities shall produce the record or office note to ascertain whether the exercise of power under Section 70 was arbitrary.
- Ordered that, the interim protection granted earlier shall continue until the next date fixed for the matter.
Our Comments:
The judgment examines the scope of Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the extent to which courts may intervene in summons proceedings during tax investigations. The Court clarified that the statutory power to summon any person during inquiry cannot be curtailed merely because the company is represented through an authorized person.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
“70. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.-
(1) The proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(1A) All persons summoned under sub-section (1) shall be bound to attend, either in person or by an authorised representative, as such officer may direct, and the person so appearing shall state the truth during examination or make statements or produce such documents and other things as may be required.
(2) Every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”
Instruction No. 02/2022-23 [GST – Investigation] dated August 17, 2022.
Subject: Guidelines for Arrest and Bail in Relation to Offences Punishable Under the CGST Acт, 2017 – Reg.
“Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 16th August, 2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5442/2021, has observed as follows: “We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has noо reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”
….”
Instruction No. 03/2022-23 (GST-Investigation) dated August 17, 2022.
Subject: Guidelines on Issuance of Summons Under Section 70 of thе Central Goods & Services Таx Act, 2017 -Reg.
“…
2. As per Section 70 (1) of the CGST Act, summons can be issued by the proper officer to any person whose attendance is considered necessary either for giving evidence or producing a document or any other thing in an inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). As per sub-section (2) of Section 70, securing such documentary and oral evidence under the said legal provision shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). While issuing of summons is one of the instruments with the Department to get/obtain information or documents or statement from any person to find out the evasion of the tax etc., however, it needs to be ensured that exercise of such power is done judiciously and with due consideration. Officers are also advised to explore instances when instead of resorting to summons, a letter for requisition of information may suffice. Previously in respect of legacy laws, the Board has sensitized the officers regarding use of power of issuance of summons diligently. However, Board finds it necessary to issue fresh guidelines under CGST.
…”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
