SHRI JATIN GUPTA @ PARUL v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE UNIT DELHI

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 69(1); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 174; GST statutory provision - Section 438; GST statutory provision - Section 482

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr. PC seeking following prayer: “I. Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to not arrest the Petitioner in relation to the summons dated 16.08.2023 under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 served t o the Petitioner for his personal appearance on 23.08.2023 before the office of the Respondent. II. Pass any other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” Reported disposition:
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

W.P.(CRL) 2391/2023 Page 2 of 6 W.P.(CRL) 2391/2023 1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr. PC seeking following prayer: “I. Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to not arrest the Petitioner in relation to the summons dated 16.08.2023 under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 served t o the Petitioner for his personal appearance on 23.08.2023 before the office of the Respondent. II. Pass any other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Sh. Mohit Mathur, learned senior counsel for the pe titioner submits that in the present case, though the summons were purported to have been issued by the respondent but none of the summons were served upon the petitioners. It has further submitted that thereafter a complaint was filed under Section 174 and 175 IPC wherein the petitioner appeared through VC and duly represented by the counsel. Learned senior counsel submits that in the Court proceedings, a notice was issued to the petitioner for appearance for joining the investigation. 3. Learned senior cou nsel submits that in compliance of direction, the petitioner is appearing before the competent authority/officer/department for the purpose of investigation. 4. Issue notice. 5. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing counsel accepts notice.

W.P.(CRL) 2391/2023 Page 3 of 6 6. Mr. Harpeet Singh, senio r standing counsel submits that the present petition is not maintainable at all in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Gujrat Etc. v. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. Etc. Learned senior counsel standing has relied upon the ob servations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 16 and 17 which are reproduced herein below; “16. Thus, the position of law is that if any person is summoned under Section 69 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the purpose of recording of his statement, the pro visions of Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1908 cannot be invoked.

We say so as no First Information Report gets registered before the power of arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 i s invoked and in such circumstances, the person summoned cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. The only way a person summoned can seek protection against the pretrial arrest is to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, this is exactly what the respondents did in the present case. What the resp ondents sought by filing two criminal applications under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court was the direction to the appellant herein not to arrest them in exercise of the power confe rred by Section 69(1) of the GST Act, 2017.

W.P.(CRL) 2391/2023 Page 4 of 6 Although the Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no bar for the High Court to entertain an application for pre -arrest protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it was held that such power should be exercised sparingly. There is a fundamental distinction between a petition for anticipatory bail and the writ of mandamus directing an officer not to effect arrest. A writ of mandamus would lie only to compel the performance of the statutory or other duties. No writ of mandamus would lie to prevent an officer from performing his statutory function. When a writ application is filed before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ court owes a duty to examine the fact of the case and ascertain whether the case of the writ applicant falls under the category of exceptional cases as indicated in Kartar Singh (supra).

Thus, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that therefor e, some protection may be granted to the petitioner. 9. Learned senior standing counsel for GST submits that in fact at present only the petitioner has been called for the purpose of inquiry and production of documents and the department has not even moved

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The writ court should also ensure whether by issuing the writ of mandamus, it would be preventing the competent authority or proper officer from performing any of their statutory functions.” 7. Senior standing counsel for GST submits that there is no ground to issue writ of mandamus or to the petitioner and the petitioner is liable to be rejected out rightly. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the The State of Gujrat Etc.(Supra) the 14 summons had already been issued to the respondents but still the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted an opportunity to the respondents to appear before the competent authority for the purpose of recording of their statement.

W.P.(CRL) 2391/2023 Page 6 of 6 there are sufficient inherent safeguards contained in Section 69 prior to the affecting arrest of the accused persons. The legislature in its wisdom has made it mandatory that before affecting the arrest of the accused, the commissioner should have reasons to be believ e that a person has committed an offence under Section 132 of the CGST , it further provides that the officer authorized to arrest the per son shall inform such person the ground of arrest. 12. Thus, I consider that Section 69 which is akin to Section 19 of PMLA has inherent safeguards before affecting the arrest of accused persons. Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances and in view of the judgment of The State of Gujrat Etc. (Supra), I consider that no relief can be granted in the present petition to the petitioner. The relief as stated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was granted by the Apex Court in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances. 13. The Court has also taken into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the department that as of now, the department ha s not even moved a file for eff ecting the arrest of the accused and there is no apprehension. 14. Hence, the present petition is dismissed.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with SHRI JATIN GUPTA @ PARUL v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE UNIT DELHI concerns issue and context: the present petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india read with section 482 of cr. pc seeking following prayer: “i. writ of mandamus directing the respondent to not arrest the petitioner in relation to the summons dated 16.08.2023 under section 70 of the central goods and services tax act, 2017 served t o the petitioner for his personal appearance on 23.08.2023 before the office of the respondent. ii. pass any other writ, order or direction as this hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” reported disposition: The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in W.P.(CRL) 2391/2023.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Dismissed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr. PC seeking following prayer: “I. Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to not arrest the Petitioner in relation to the summons dated 16.08.2023 under section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 served t o the Petitioner for his personal appearance on 23.08.2023 before the office of the Respondent. II. Pass any other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” Reported disposition: Its practical value lies in the way the Delhi High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 69(1); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 174; GST statutory provision - Section 438; GST statutory provision - Section 482—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 69(1); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 174; GST statutory provision - Section 438; GST statutory provision - Section 482 and the decision date 2023-08-23; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is SHRI JATIN GUPTA @ PARUL v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE UNIT DELHI, the proceeding is W.P.(CRL) 2391/2023, and the decision is dated 2023-08-23. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 19; GST statutory provision - Section 69; GST statutory provision - Section 69(1); GST statutory provision - Section 70; GST statutory provision - Section 132; GST statutory provision - Section 174; GST statutory provision - Section 438; GST statutory provision - Section 482. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Dismissed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 19 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 69 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 69(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 70 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 132 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 174 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 438 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 482 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• NAVNEET BANSAL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI NORTH — Delhi High Court · Dismissed
• Rishi Enterprises through Proprietor Rajeev Kumar Goel v. Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi North and Another — Delhi High Court · Dismissed
• Sun Aero Ltd. v. PCIT — Delhi High Court · Quashed / set aside
• Mohd. Akib v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Allowed / set aside

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Search, Summons & Arrest

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY