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
Manoj Ramkishan Agrawal & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr.
Whether a separate penalty under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017 can be imposed on partners of a firm for fraudulent availment/passing on of ITC, and whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable where an efficacious appellate remedy under Sectio
BackgroundThe petitioners are partners of M/s. Maa Renuka Trading Company, Indor...
Read MoreMunjaal Manishbhai Bhatt v. Union of India
Validity of mandatory 1/3rd deemed deduction towards land value under Paragraph 2 of Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) for computing GST on construction services involving transfer of land.
BackgroundThe writ applicant, a practicing advocate, entered into an agreement d...
Read MoreState of West Bengal & Ors. v. Calcutta Club Limited & Ors.
Levy of sales tax/VAT on supply of food and beverages by clubs to members – interpretation of Article 366(29-A)(e) of the Constitution and Section 2(30) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. Applicability of doctrine of mutuality to incorporated and u
Facts:The dispute arose from demands of sales tax on supply of food and drinks b...
Read More