Kanhaiya Nilambar Jha vs. Union of India & Ors.
Facts :
The petitioner alleged that GST officers illegally detained him from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 after calling him to the office of a Chartered Accountant in connection with investigation into fraudulent input tax credit by M/s Kabsan Services Pvt. Ltd. He contended that he was taken into custody without summons and that the formal arrest was shown only on 21.06.2025 under Section 69 of the CGST Act for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(i). The petitioner sought compensation of ₹10,00,000 for alleged illegal detention.
Court Decision:
The Court held that the petitioner had been issued summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act for inquiry and recording of statement. The petitioner acknowledged the summons and appeared before the authorities from 17.06.2025 to 20.06.2025 without raising any objection. The Court further held that Section 70 of the CGST Act does not require issuance of seven days’ prior notice before appearance for inquiry and that attendance pursuant to summons for investigation cannot be treated as detention.
The Court observed that the petitioner was formally arrested on 21.06.2025 after ascertainment of his involvement and was produced before the Magistrate on the same day. Since the petitioner had voluntarily attended the inquiry and no illegal detention was established, the claim for compensation was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.
Cases Referred by Court:
• Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P.
• D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal
• Dikshant vs. State of Maharashtra
• FSM Education Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India
• Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement
• Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India
Other Case Law
Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center & Batch vs. Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST)(GST) & Others
Whether GST registrations cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of CGST/TNGST Acts for non-filing of returns for a continuous period of six months can be restored by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, even where the statutory period of limit
BACKGROUNDA batch of 27 Writ Petitions was filed by various small traders and bu...
Read MoreC.H. Robinson Worldwide Freight India Private Limited vs Additional Commissioner, CGST Delhi South & Ors.
Whether a Show Cause Notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 is barred by limitation where it was not served upon the assessee at least three months prior to the outer time limit prescribed under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act — and whether
BACKGROUNDThe CGST Department (Delhi-South) conducted a scrutiny of the returns ...
Read MoreThe State of Himachal Pradesh and Others v. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and
Binding nature of law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India on all Courts, Tribunals, and authorities functioning under a High Court's superintendence — and the requirement of judicial discipline to prevent
Background:Para 1–2, 3.1–3.14: The Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Plann...
Read More