Section 70 CGST Act – No Need to issue 7 days’ Notice for summons
Section 70 CGST Act – No Need to issue 7 days Notice for summons
Therefore, on going through the aforesaid observations as well as language of Section 70 of CGST Act, it cannot be held that there was need of 7 days notice for issuing summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. On the contrary, it has to be held that a person can be summoned for making inquiry and recording his statement under the said provision which does not amount to detention.
Arrest of office boy by GST Officers and Rs.10 lakhs compensation for illegal detention.
On 17.6.2025, the GST Officers visited the office of a Chartered Accountant at Mumbai. The petitioner was called and taken in custody. On the same day, he was taken to Ch. Sambhajinagar without any summons or arrest memo and without informing his family members.
On 18.6.2025, the petitioner was illegally detained in the CGST Office at Ch. Sambhajinagar without showing arrest and without producing him before the Magistrate till 20.6.2025.
On 20.6.2025, the wife of the petitioner approached an advocate who visited CGST and also sought information from senior GST officers about illegal arrest and custody.
On 21.6.2025, the respondent no.4 had shown the formal arrest of the petitioner at Nanded under Section 69 of the CGST Act and file case before the JMFC for offences under Sections 132(1)(b), (c) and (i) of CGST Act.
On 21.6.2025, the Magistrate remanded the petitioner to M.C.R. till 3.7.2025.
On 21.6.2025, the petitioner filed bail application. It was rejected on 23.6.2025.
On 26.6.2025, the petitioner filed fresh application for bail before the Sessions Judge and another application for interim bail on 3.7.2025.
On 4.7.2025, the Sessions Court granted interim bail but stayed the same on the application for cancellation of bail.
Thereafter, the petitioner was granted bail.
the petitioner had readily accepted the summons issued to him from 17.06.2025 to 19.06.2025. He readily acknowledged the summons by putting his signatures thereon and also attending on the dates. Further, during that period he did not make any complaint about his alleged illegal detention. Further, the record shows that he was kept in GST Bhavan at Aurangabad (20) Cri.WP-885.2025.odt as per his own wish and he was also allowed to use his four mobile handsets from which he could have easily made contact with his family members. Under such circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the petitioner was under illegal detention at the hands of respondent Nos.1 to 4 during the said period. Therefore, no question arises of awarding compensation to the petitioner, as claimed by him.
Judgment dated 5.2.2026 of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Writ Petition No.885 of 2025 of the High C5.2.2026 of Kanhaiya Nilamer Jha Vs. Union of India and others
