Devendra Surana v. Union of lndia
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased declare that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the subsequent summon dated 02.04.2026 on the file of Respondent No. 5 seeking attendance of the petitioner on 08.04.2026 under section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 to coerce the petitioner that ft:o when there is no demand outstanding against M/s Bhagyanagar lndia Limited under section 74 of the Act or .under any other provision of the CGST AcL,2017 is unlawful, vic, lative of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution more particularly Arti,:le 20, 2'l and 22, violative of -the fair trial doctrine, violative of the mandate under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, violative of settled principles of Jaw and consequently set aside the proceedings initiated against the petitioner including the summons dated 02.O4.2026 and pass such other order or orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the interest of equigl and justice, lssue any writ or order more particulady one in the nature of writ of Manda"nus in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Respondents No. 4 and 5 including the subsequent surnmon dated 02.04.2026 on the file of Respondent No. S seeking attendance of th,: petitioner on 08.04.2026 under section 70 of the COST Act, 20'll lo coerce the petitic, ner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KUMARASWAMY NAMBURI Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, GENERAL OF INDIA SENIOR SC FOR CBIC The Court made the following: ORDER AT HYDERABAD The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Aparesh Kumar Sinsh The Hon'ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin Writ Petition No.10378 of 2026 Dated: 08.04.2026 Between: Devendra Surana, S/o G.M.Surana, Aged 60 years, Managing Director, R"/o # 21, P&T Colony, Vikrampuri, Trimulgherry, VTC, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 009 Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi - I l0 001 and 4 others. Order: ...Petitioner ...Respondents Heard Mr. N.Kumaraswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr. N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.l and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs appearing for respondents No.2 to 5.
#2. 'fhe matter has been taken up on urgent mentioning today on the request of learned counsel fbr the petitioner that the petitioner is being repeatedly surrrmoned by the respondent No.5. There is an apprehension of arrest without any reasons though the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation. There are no outstanding dues left against him as the ,t / ..,).. a--- amount trdjudged in the proceeding under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (for short 'the CGST Act') against the company has alrearly been paid.
#3. 1'he petitioner claims to have subrnitted several documents after appearing; before the authority on 24.11.2025. The other officials of the company are also being summoned. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026.
#4. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Bhagyanagar India Lirnited, who was earlier surnmoned to appear on 13.11.2025. The impugned sulnmons dated 02.04.2026 is only the second surunons issued by respondent No.5- Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligen<:e (DGGI), upon the petitioner to appear before him today at 1l:00 a.m., to give oral evidence in relation to improper availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the supplies made by Mis.AMZ Traders and the role of management in proper verification and continuation of dealings with IWs.AMZ Traders.
#5. Learned Senior Counsel for CBIC, on instructions, submits that the petitioner, instead of appearing in person today, has sent an Emait at 10:40 a.m., that he is leaving the city on some urgent work. The other official, who was summoned, also did not appear yesterday on the ground of attending s()me court work. It is submitted that Section 70 of the CGST Act \ \ empowers the authorities conducting investigation to summon the persons ::3:: connected with or in capacity to give evidence bn the subject matter of investigation. Petitioner has not made out any illegality in issuance of the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026. Unless the materials are collected from the persons summoned in connection rvith the subject matter of investigation, the DGGI would not be able to conclude the investigation in a proper manner.
#6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances noted qbove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the { rr',. irnpugned Summons dated 02.04.2026. Petitioner is under obligation to appetr: before respondent No.5 in pursuance of the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026, issued in exerciqe of statutory powers under Section 70 of f the CGST Act in the.course of investigation of improper availment of ITC fbr the supplies made by M/s.AMZ Traderc. Sincc the impugned summons dated 02.04.2026 is only the second summons, we do not find any basis for the petitioner's apprehension as expressed above.
#7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disrnissed. No costs. $ g seqg_e_lr. plqcellaneous petitions. pending if any, stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN SISTANT REGISTRAR / To
#1. One CC to SRI KUMARASWAMY NAMBURI, 2. One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY S loPUcl TOR GENERAL OF INDIA IoPUCI
#3. One CC to SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBIC IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER PSK. TKS HIGH COURT DATED: 0810412026 ORDER WP.No.10378 o12026 o ( * IH€ S 2 z Apn to25 '. * PATCHED DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v\ lJ
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 74.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 08 Apr 2026. The bench was APARESH KUMAR SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.