tV/s. Miles Education Private Limited v. 1. Union of lndia

2. The Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax lntelligence, Represented by its Senior lntelligence Officer, Office of the Additional Director, DGGI, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, H.No.1-63121212, Plot No. 212 and 213, Block B, . Kavuri Hills, Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur, Hyderabad-500033, Telangana 3. Mr. Shuhab Peera, Senior lntelligence Officer, The Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax lntelligence,Hyderabad Zonal Unit, H.No.1-63121212, Plot No. 212 and 213, Block B, Kavuri Hills, Guttala Begumpet, lVladhapur, Hyderabad-500033' Telangana ..RES''NDENTS 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of lvlandamus a)Declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 and 3 in issuing the impugned letter dated 15.12.2025 vide File No. DGGI/lNV/GST/289512025-Gr S-0/o ADG-DGGI-ZU-HYD to the Petitioner's clients vide Email dated 17.12.2025 at 03.27 P[/, 03.36 PIVI and 03.59 PM as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. b)Consequently, set aside the letter dated 15.12.2025 vide File No. DGGI/|NV/GST/2895I\2O25-Gr S-0/o ADG-DGGI-ZU- HYD issued to the Petitioner's clients. c)Direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct I all enquiries and further investigation, if any, only through the petitioner and not directly with its clients or third parties, unless the Petitioner fails to comply. d)Direct the Respondent No.2 to refrain from issuing or circulating any communications which are coercive, intimidating, alarmist, or which create an impression of culpability on the Petitioner, during the pendency of the investigation. e)Direct the Respondent No.2 to substitute the Respondent No.3 with a different officer as the lnvestigating Officer dealing with the investigation with respect to the Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to issue an email to the clients of the Petitioner stating that no reply need be given to the impugned letter at the moment lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue directions restraining the Respondent No.2 from misusing the sensitive information obtained from the Petitioner and the GST portal. Counsdl for the Petitioner: SRI AVINASH DESAI SENIOR COUNSEL REP SRI GIRJESH PATIDAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI B. MUKHERJEE REP SRI N. BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of lndia Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3 : SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, SENIOR SC FOR CBITC The Court made the following: ORDER i ] :1 1 .l n t I I I I IN THE IIIGH COI'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELITNGANA AT IITDERABAI) THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI AP KI'MAR SINGH AI\ID THE HON'BLE SRr JUSTTCE c.M.MOHrIrpDrN WRIT PETITION o.39130 of 20.25 Dated: 19.12.20.25 Between: M/s. Miles Education Private Limited ...Petitioner Union of India, Rep., by its Secretary Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, Rastrapati Bhawan, New Delhi and 2 others. ...Respondents ORDER: Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel represents Mr. Girjesh Patidar, learned counsel for the / I petitioner Mr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel represents Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appears for respondent No. i 2 Mr. Dominic Fernandes, Iearned Senior Standing Counsel appears for the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

2. The previous writ petition bearing W.P.No.386O7 of

20.25 preferred by the petitioner in respect of summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Serrrices Tax Act, 2017 (for short, "the Act") was disposed of by order dated 17.12.2025 with the following observations: "7. More or less, the factual assertions made by the petitioners have been ansrvered on instrucLions by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC. We, therefore. do not intend to delve further on the correctness of the submissions made at this stage, since the process of investigation has gone ahead by summoning of other Directors. We only reiterate the principles laid down with regard to recording of statements of summoned persons in the decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Courts in substance that the recording 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." ,'r.,1 J

3. Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition immediately thereafter for the reason that the respondents have issued e-mails to the customers of the petitioner company on L7.12.2O25 seeking clarification on a set of questionnaire enclosed in DIN, dated 15. L2.2O2S in respect of the investigation being carried out against the petitioner.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that by three e- mails approximately 2oo custorners of the petitioner has been asked to furnish the information on ttre questionnaires. The approach of the respondents smacks of highhandedness intended to damage the business reputation of the petitioner. The customer/client confidentiality is being exposed which is not proper in the eye of law. \

5. We have seen the e-mail, dated LZ.IZ.ZO2E and also tlre questionnaire contained in DIN, dated lS.l2.2O2S issued to the customers of the petitioner company. There 1 I is no doubt ttrat in course of investigation, the department can seek answers concerning the subject matter from the recipients of the supplies made by the petitioner company I l ,i i :i J u I I ; : l I i 4 and as such, seeking such information cannot be said to be beyond their jurisdiction. However, it appears that in doing so, the department could have exercised discretion in ensuring that the customer/client's confidentiality is not shared with other customers of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent department submits that he would advise the department to ensure that in future, such bulk copies of one email be not issued to number of recipients/customers of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has made supplies to several otlier customers in respect of whom such discretion would be observed while sending emails.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having taken on record the stand of the department as regards the clarifications being sought from the recipients of the petitioner company, we are of the view that though no interference should be made at this stage, the department would ensure that proper discretion is exercised while seeking information/clarification from the t I 5 customers of the petitioner compa"ny in course of the investigation, if necessary.

8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if €u1y, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To, SD/.M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I 6 SECTION OFFICER

1. T'he..secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, \orth Block, Rashtrapati Bhawan NewDelhi- 110001 2. Ihe Senior lntelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax lntelliglnge, Office of the A_dditional Director, DGGI, HyOeraOiO Zonal Unit, H.No.1-63.1.21212, Plot No. 212 and 213, globk B, Kavtiri Hills, Guttala ^ Pegugpgt, lV1{hqpgr, !-!yderabad-500033, Teiangana 3. One CC to SRl. ctRJESH PATIDAR, Advocate t6pUCI 4. One CC to SRl, N. BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia 5. one.cc to sRl. DoMlNlc FERNANDES, sENroR sc FoR cBtrc [opuc] 6. Two CD Copies IoPUCI BM ,$T HIGH COURT DATED:1911212025 ORDER WP.No.39130 of 2025 . --+t j* 03 rtg zuE i * * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT'PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *\M I