Case Law Details
Smt. Deepa Goel Vs Union of India (Telangana High Court)
Telangana High Court Dismisses Challenge to GST Summons After Petitioners Withdraw Writ Petitions
Summary: The content is a Legal Case/Judgment/Tribunal Order. The Telangana High Court dealt with writ petitions challenging summons dated 02.06.2026 issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, requiring the petitioners to appear on 10.06.2026 for oral deposition. The petitioners contended that the summons were without jurisdiction, were hit by Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017/Telangana GST Act, 2017, and were contrary to Circular No.1/1/2017-IGST dated 07.07.2017 and D.O.F. No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST (Pt.) dated 05.10.2018. During the hearing, counsel for the CBIC referred to the High Court’s order in W.P. No.10378 of 2026, in which a similar challenge had been dismissed on 08.04.2026, observing that the petitioner was obliged to appear pursuant to summons issued under Section 70 during investigation. It was also submitted that the cause no longer survived as the impugned summons required appearance on 10.06.2026. After arguments, the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and closed the pending miscellaneous applications.
Introduction
In Smt. Deepa Goel v. Union of India & Others and Sri Sandeep Kumar Goel v. Union of India & Others, the Telangana High Court considered whether summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 could be challenged on the ground that they were issued without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions governing concurrent jurisdiction under the GST law.
During the hearing, however, the petitioners chose to withdraw the writ petitions after the Revenue referred to an earlier decision of the High Court involving an identical issue.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners challenged summons dated 02.06.2026 issued by the GST authorities under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, requiring them to appear before the investigating officer for recording of oral statements.
The writ petitions were primarily based on the following grounds:
- The summons were allegedly issued without jurisdiction.
- The proceedings were stated to be barred by Section 6(2)(b)of the CGST/TGST Act.
- Reliance was placed on Circular No. 1/1/2017-IGST dated 07.07.2017and CBEC Letter dated 05.10.2018, which, according to the petitioners, regulated the exercise of jurisdiction by GST authorities.
Petitioners’ Contentions
The petitioners contended that:
- The impugned summons issued under Section 70 lacked jurisdiction.
- The initiation of proceedings violated Section 6(2)(b) of the GST legislation dealing with concurrent jurisdiction.
- The summons were contrary to the administrative circulars and instructions issued by the CBIC governing GST investigations.
Revenue’s Stand
The CBIC submitted that:
- The controversy had already been decided by the Telangana High Court in P. No. 10378 of 2026, where a similar challenge to summons issued under Section 70 was rejected.
- In the earlier case, the Court had held that a person summoned under Section 70 was required to appear before the investigating authority.
- The summons had required the petitioners to appear on 06.2026, and therefore the original cause of action no longer survived.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted the submissions made by the Revenue regarding its earlier decision on an identical issue.
After hearing the parties for some time, counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw both writ petitions.
Accordingly, without examining the merits of the challenge, the Court permitted withdrawal and dismissed both writ petitions as withdrawn.
Final Decision
The Telangana High Court:
- Permitted the petitioners to withdraw both writ petitions.
- Dismissed P. Nos. 18281 and 18337 of 2026as withdrawn.
- Passed no order as to costs.
- Closed all pending miscellaneous applications.
Key Takeaways
1. Section 70 Summons Continue to Receive Judicial Support
The case reflects the High Court’s consistent approach that summons issued during GST investigations under Section 70 ordinarily should not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.
2. Investigation Summons Should Normally Be Complied With
The Revenue relied upon an earlier Telangana High Court ruling which held that persons summoned under Section 70 are expected to cooperate with the investigation.
3. Writ Jurisdiction May Not Be Invoked Against Investigation Proceedings
Courts generally discourage challenges to investigation-stage summons unless exceptional circumstances demonstrating lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process are established.
4. Withdrawal Leaves Legal Issues Open
Since the writ petitions were withdrawn without adjudication, the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ challenge relating to Section 6(2)(b) or the CBIC circulars.
Conclusion
In Smt. Deepa Goel v. Union of India & Others and Sri Sandeep Kumar Goel v. Union of India & Others, the Telangana High Court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn after the Revenue relied upon an earlier judgment upholding the validity of summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act during investigation. While the Court did not decide the substantive legal issues raised, the order reinforces the judicial trend of requiring taxpayers and other persons summoned under the GST law to cooperate with investigation proceedings and avail appropriate remedies, if necessary, at a later stage.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Learned counsel Sri B.Krishna Reddy appears for the petitioners.
Learned counsel Sri Ramaraju Shyam Sundar, representing Sri N.Bhujanga 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 respondents No.2 to 4.
2. The present writ petitions are filed challenging the summons dated 02.06.2026 issued by respondent No.4 under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, directing the petitioners to appear before him on 10.06.2026 at 11:30 am for oral deposition as without jurisdiction and hit by Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”) and contrary to the Circular No.1/1/2017-IGST, dated 07.07.2017, and the letter in D.O.F.No.CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST (Pt.) dated 05.10.2018.
3. When the matters are taken up today, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has also brought to the notice of this court the order passed by this court in W.P.No.10378 of 2026 wherein similar issue wasinvolved. This court dismissed the said writ petition on 08.04.2026 observing that the petitioner therein was under obligation to appear before the authorities in pursuance of the impugned summons issued in exercise of statutory powers under Section 70 of the Act in the course of investigation. He further submits that the cause in the writ petitions does not survive as the impugned summons were issued asking the petitioners to appear on 10.06.2026 itself.
4. After arguing the matters for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this court to withdraw the writ petitions.
5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
