The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a,.Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus (i) Declaring the actions of the Respondent No.2 in illegally detaining the Petitioner No.2 till 12.30 AM and issuing a summons at 12.30 AM on 13t12t2O25 by hand directing presence before the Respondent No'2 on 1311212025 at 1 1.00 AM as illegal, arbitrary, and in contravention of the constitutional guarantees and (ii) Consequently, set aside the Summons dated 13.'12.2025 vide File No. DGGI/INT/INTL/1289/2025-Gr S -0/o ADG-DGGI-ZU- HyD issued against the Petitioners (iii) Direct the Respondent No.2 to follow the I ; I I I I i j- I i ! i I due process o1'law and comply with the principles of naturaljustice in the course of the investigirtion against the Petitioner No.1 and not use any acts of violence or torture or any undue means against the employees of the Petitioner No.1 herein (iv) Direct the Respondent No. 2 to conduct the proceedings during office hours and in the presence of an Advocate appointed by the Petitioner No.1 herein lA NO: 1OF 21125 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pteased to direct the Respondent No.2 not to take coercive steps including but not limited to arrest, atta:hment, deposits etc. against the Petitioners during the pendency of the Writ Pel:ition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AVINASH DESAI REP SRl. GIRJESH PATIDAR Counsel for the Respondent No.l: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP SRI N BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for lhe Respondent No.2: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBIC The Court marde the following: ORDER n AT IITDERABAD THE HOIT'BLE THT CEIEF JUSTICT SRI APARTSII KT'MAR SIITGH ANI) THE HON'BLE SRI .,USrICE G.M.MOHII'DDIIT WRIT PEIITION No.386O7 of 2O25 Datedzl7.l2.2O2S Between: M/s. Miles Education Private Limited and another. Union of India, Represented by Secretar5r, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, RashtraPati Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001, and another. .Petltioners .Respondents ORDER: Learned Senior Counsel Sri Avinash Desai, representing learned counsel Sri Girjesh Patidar, appears I / for the petitioners. 2 karned counsel sri B.Mukherjee, repSesenting sri N.Bthujanga Rao, learned Deputy solicitor General of India, appears for resPondent No.1 Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned senior standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appears for respondent No.2.

2. Heard the learned counsel for t]re partles'

3. The present writ petition essentially raises grievance of reccrding of statements of petitioner No.2 beyond oflice hours by respondent No.2 pursuant to the s-ummons issued by respondent No.2 under Section 70 of the central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, during the course of investigation

4. Factualty, allegations have been made that respondent No.2 restrained petitioner No.2 from leaving his office and continued the recording of statements till midnight. Summons to appear on the next date were issued on the same date. In this background, certain decisions rendered by the other jurisdictional High Courts \ / r-; t 3 like the High Court of Bombay in FSM Educatlon Rrt. Ltd. v. Union of Indialr High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Shiva Kumar Deora v. Union of India2 and a decision of this Court in M/s. Agarral Foundries Private Limited Rama Towers v. Union of India (W.P.No.28268 of 2019, dated O6.1L.2O2O\ have been relied upon. It is submitted that these d.ecisions lay down certain guidelines for interrogation of the summoned person and tJlat too within office hours. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that th9 netitioners and the concerned Directors are ready to abide by the summons and cooperate in tJ:e investigation process, but as per the instructions of the department and the guidelines rendered by the High Courts in similar matters.

5. learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, on instructions, has endeavoured to explain that the recording of statements of petitioner No.2 went beyond the office hours on his own request as he had to leave to Bangalore. It is further submitted that when the recording of i / ' z0zz SCC OnLine Bom 79 2 zozq sc0 online Jhar 1956 4 statements could not be concluded, summons to appear on the next date were issued. He, however, submits that in other cin:umstallces, the officials adhere to the office hours for the purposes of record.ing tJ:e statements of the summorred. persons. He also submits that the principles laid down in [nstruction No.O3/2O22-23 (GST- Investigation) dated 17.O8.2O22 issued by' tJ:e GST-Investigation Wing, wilt be scrupulously followed in .'. t]1e casie of the noticees in respect of the investigation carried out against the petitioner company. He further submits that the summons have been issued upon the other l)irectors to appear on 16. I2.2O25 and'L7.L2.2O25, since 'petitioner No.2 did not appear on L3.L2.2O25. He ': submits that in his place, the Advocate appeared who claime:d ignorance about the affairs of the company.

6. 'We have considered the submissions of the learned counsiel for the parties.

7. More or [ess, the factual assertions mad3 by the petitioners have been answered on instructions by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC. We, therefore, ) / {-t 5 do not intend to delve further on the cor:rectness of the submissions made at tllis stage, since the process of investigation has gone ahead by summoning of other Directors. We only reiterate the princrples laid down with regard to recording of statements of summoned persons in the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Courts in .*substance that the record.ing of statements should be done within the office' hours and that 'such recording of statements should be voluntary. .

8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY/' To, 1 2 'sDl; l-. VIJAYA I OFFICER

3. 4. s. 6ne-ct to SRt. DoMtNtC FERNANDES, SENIOR Sc FoR CBIC IoPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies loPUCl BM w \ \ 1 ST.1 o Ll 0 1 APH 2026 z 6) * HIGH COURT DATED i1711212025 ORDER WP.No.38607 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOT'T COSTS ? el