Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arrest Powers under Section 70 of the CGST Act
The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition that sought a writ of mandamus to halt the petitioner's arrest under Section 70
By: : Ajay Singh
Update: 2023-09-04 12:30 GMT
Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arrest Powers under Section 70 of the CGST Act The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition that sought a writ of mandamus to halt the petitioner's arrest under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). In this particular case, the petitioner initiated the petition seeking a writ of mandamus. The objective was to...
Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Arrest Powers under Section 70 of the CGST Act
The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition that sought a writ of mandamus to halt the petitioner's arrest under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act).
In this particular case, the petitioner initiated the petition seeking a writ of mandamus. The objective was to compel the Directorate General of the GST Intelligence Unit to abstain from apprehending the petitioner concerning the summons dated August 16, 2023, issued under section 70 of the CGST Act. This summons demanded the petitioner's presence in person on August 23, 2023, at the Directorate General of GST's office.
The senior standing counsel for GST contended that there were no legitimate reasons to grant a writ of mandamus in this instance, and therefore, the petition should be summarily dismissed.
The single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma drew upon the case of State of Gujarat, Etc. v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. Etc. [LQ/SC/2023/759], wherein it was established that an individual summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act cannot seek the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which pertains to anticipatory bail. The court had remarked that there exists a fundamental distinction between a petition for anticipatory bail and a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus is a court directive that compels a public official to fulfil their statutory duties. However, a writ of mandamus cannot be employed to hinder an officer from executing their statutory responsibilities.
After a comprehensive examination of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench concluded that no relief could be extended to the petitioner.
The Bench also took into account the department's assertion that they had not initiated any process for the petitioner's arrest, and there was no reason to fear his apprehension.
The Bench, thus, opted to dismiss the current petition.