The Goods and Services Tax framework grants investigative powers to authorities to ensure compliance, prevent evasion, and collect accurate revenue. Among these powers, the ability to summon individuals for attendance and production of documents plays a central role. Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 outlines the conditions under which summons may be issued, the officers authorised to issue them, and the legal consequences of non-compliance.
Although the provision contains only two sub-sections, its scope and effect extend deeply into the investigative process. The section is supported by provisions from the Code of Civil Procedure, principles from the Indian Penal Code, and a series of judicial interpretations. Together, these create a framework in which the authority to summon operates as both an investigative tool and a legally enforceable obligation.
Power to Summon under Section 70
Section 70 empowers the proper officer to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary for giving evidence or producing documents or other items relevant to an inquiry. This provision ensures that officers have the legal means to gather information that may not otherwise be voluntarily disclosed.
Without this authority, investigations into suspected evasion, wrongful claims of input tax credit, or misclassification of goods and services would often stall due to lack of cooperation. The ability to compel attendance and secure documentation is therefore vital to effective enforcement.
The term summon refers to a formal legal demand requiring a person to appear before an authority. It is distinct from a general request for information because it carries enforceable legal consequences if ignored.
Judicial Interpretation of the Term Inquiry
Courts have clarified the meaning and scope of inquiry in the context of Section 70. The Allahabad High Court in G.K. Trading Company v. Union of India held that an inquiry under Section 70 is a distinct stage in the investigative process, aimed at calling a person to give evidence or produce materials, and cannot be confused with subsequent adjudication or other statutory procedures.
The Rajasthan High Court in S.K. Metal v. Assistant Commissioner confirmed that the power to issue summons is legally valid and structured, rather than arbitrary or unlimited. These rulings underline that while the power is significant, it is not without checks and must be exercised for specific purposes connected to an inquiry.
Authorised Officers to Issue Summons
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued Circular No. 3/3/2017 on 5 July 2017, stating that the Superintendent is the proper officer for issuing summons under Section 70. Additionally, the CBIC’s Frequently Asked Questions on GST, third edition dated 15 December 2018, require that prior written approval from an Assistant Commissioner be obtained, with recorded reasons, before summons are issued.
The Gujarat High Court in Yasho Industries Ltd. v. Union of India clarified that officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence are also recognised as proper officers empowered to issue summons under Section 70.
Inquiry as Judicial Proceedings under the IPC
An inquiry initiated under Section 70 is treated as a judicial proceeding within the scope of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. This classification has significant implications.
Section 193 provides for punishment of up to seven years imprisonment and a fine for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. Section 228 imposes imprisonment of up to six months or a fine, or both, for intentionally insulting or interrupting a public servant conducting a judicial proceeding.
In this context, the word inquiry refers to an official investigation aimed at uncovering facts related to potential contraventions, while the word inquiry is more general and informal in nature.
Scope of the Inquiry Power
The scope of the power to conduct inquiries under Section 70 is not narrowly confined. In National Building Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India, under similar provisions in the Central Excise law, the Delhi High Court ruled that inquiries are not restricted to matters after a show cause notice is issued. Instead, an officer may gather information, examine records, and question individuals even before deciding whether to initiate formal proceedings.
Although Section 70 does not use the phrase for purposes of this Act, the same broad interpretation applies under GST because the proper officer is authorised to carry out functions necessary to enforce the law.
Nature of Proceedings Initiated by Summons
The Telangana High Court in P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India observed that inquiries under GST, though not criminal in nature, are judicial proceedings. A person summoned in such an inquiry must tell the truth, avoid fabricating evidence, and refrain from disrupting proceedings.
The Supreme Court in Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, a case under the Customs law, determined that such proceedings are civil in character, aimed at collecting evidence for potential future action. The designation of these proceedings as judicial serves mainly to ensure compliance and impose penalties for misconduct during the process.
Application of the Code of Civil Procedure
Section 70(1) makes certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to proceedings conducted under the GST Act. These provisions, found in Sections 27 to 32 and Order V, relate to the mode of serving summons, circumstances under which a person is exempt from appearance, and similar procedural matters.
By adopting these provisions, GST officers are vested with powers similar to those of a civil court to compel attendance and secure the production of documents.
Consequences of Non-Compliance with a Summons
Failure to attend or produce documents in response to a summons without lawful excuse carries significant legal consequences. Under the CPC, the court may issue a warrant of arrest, order attachment of property, or issue a proclamation requiring the person to appear. These same powers are available to GST officers conducting inquiries.
Section 122(3)(d) of the CGST Act imposes a monetary penalty of twenty-five thousand rupees for such non-compliance. This penalty may be applied in addition to procedural measures such as arrest warrants or property attachment. It is important to note that these consequences are distinct from the power to arrest under Section 69, which is reserved for serious cases involving deliberate evasion.
Compliance Obligations
Compliance with a summons is mandatory regardless of the eventual outcome of the main case. In Vijay Mallya v. Enforcement Directorate, the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with a summons constitutes an independent offence. Even if the substantive charges against a person are dismissed, avoiding attendance or withholding documents during the investigation process is a punishable act on its own.
Circumstances Where Summons Should Not Be Issued
Courts have cautioned against issuing summons unnecessarily. In A.S. Corporation v. Union of India, the Gujarat High Court ruled that when the department already has all relevant information, further summons should not be issued unless new, specific evidence is discovered. This principle was reinforced in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Union of India, where the court found that certain inquiries served no practical purpose and therefore should not proceed.
In Ebiz.Com Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court held that there is no legal basis to require the creation of documents in a particular format when such documents do not exist. Recognising the potential for misuse, CBIC issued Instruction No. 03/2022-23 on 17 August 2022, directing officers to consider using letters of requisition instead of summons when possible, and to avoid summoning for information already available on the GST portal. Officers are also expected to be present at the specified time and date when a summons is issued.
Evidentiary Value of Statements
Statements obtained through summons have a specific status under GST law. Section 136 of the CGST Act allows statements made in response to a summons to be admissible in proceedings, unlike confessions to police officers, which are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Courts have repeatedly affirmed that revenue officers are not police officers for this purpose. The admissibility of such statements depends on their voluntary nature. In Soni Vallabhdas Liladhar, the court ruled that statements must be free from inducement, threat, or promise to be admissible. The constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) generally does not apply during the investigation stage, as the person is not yet formally accused, as explained in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector.
If the department intends to rely on a statement, the person must be given a copy, as established in Amba Lal v. Union of India. Witnesses also have the right to refresh their memory by referring to records or documents, a right recognised under Section 159 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Presence of an Advocate During Questioning
The right to have legal representation during questioning under a summons has been addressed in several cases. In Poolpandi v. Superintendent of Central Excise, the Supreme Court held that the absence of a lawyer during questioning does not violate constitutional rights, as the purpose of the inquiry could be compromised by the presence of external influences.
However, some High Courts have permitted limited legal presence. In Agarwal Foundries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the court allowed an advocate to be present within sight but not within hearing range. CBIC’s FAQs advise that statements should be recorded during office hours and that persons should not be subjected to unnecessary delays.
The Delhi High Court in Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence followed the Poolpandi decision, holding that the presence of a lawyer is not an automatic right in GST inquiries. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in A Y Trading Co. v. Directorate General of GST Intelligence permitted a lawyer’s presence under similar restrictions, allowing visibility but not audibility during the examination.
Legal Basis for Issuing Summons
The foundation for issuing summons under GST is Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This provision empowers the proper officer to call for attendance and production of documents that are relevant to an inquiry. The power is reinforced by provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which specify methods of service, situations where personal attendance is exempted, and enforcement actions for non-compliance.
The procedural rules for summons have evolved through judicial pronouncements, departmental circulars, and internal instructions. These collectively ensure that the process is not arbitrary, but carried out with recorded justification.
Circumstances Leading to the Issuance of Summons
Summons are generally issued in cases where there is suspected evasion of tax, wrongful availment of input tax credit, misreporting of turnover, classification disputes involving large revenue implications, or when transactions appear to be structured to avoid tax liability. They may also be issued for cross-verification of records, examination of third parties involved in a transaction chain, or obtaining clarifications on financial statements.
While the power is broad, it is not intended for routine inquiries where the required information is already available from returns filed or through the GST portal. Departmental instructions encourage officers to first use alternative methods such as letters of requisition before resorting to summons.
Authorisation and Approval Requirements
Under CBIC guidelines, the Superintendent of Central Tax is recognised as the proper officer to issue summons. However, as a matter of administrative control, prior written approval from an Assistant Commissioner or higher authority is required in most cases. The reasons for issuing the summons must be recorded in writing, including why alternative methods of obtaining information were inadequate.
This system of prior approval acts as a safeguard against unnecessary or repetitive summons and ensures that the decision to summon is proportionate to the investigative needs.
Form and Contents of a Summons
A valid summons should clearly identify the officer issuing it, the legal authority under which it is issued, the name and address of the person summoned, the place, date, and time of appearance, and the purpose of attendance. It should also specify whether the person is required to appear in person or may send an authorised representative, and whether any documents are to be produced.
Ambiguity in the wording of a summons can create legal challenges and potentially weaken the enforceability of the notice. Therefore, the drafting must be precise and aligned with statutory requirements.
Service of Summons
The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to service apply to GST summons. This includes personal delivery, service through registered post or courier, or delivery to an authorised agent.
If the person cannot be found, service may be made by affixing a copy of the summons on the premises where the person ordinarily resides or carries on business. The mode of service is critical because improper service can be a valid ground for challenging proceedings initiated for non-compliance.
Attendance in Person or Through Authorised Representative
In certain cases, a person may be permitted to appear through an authorised representative, such as a legal counsel, chartered accountant, or company secretary. However, in situations where personal attendance is essential, particularly when oral testimony is required, the officer may insist on the presence of the individual concerned.
The distinction between these situations depends on the purpose of the summons. For example, the recording of a statement or clarification of facts may necessitate personal presence, whereas production of documents could be delegated to an authorised representative.
Rights of the Summoned Person
Even though the summons process imposes a legal obligation to appear, individuals have several rights to ensure fair treatment. These include:
- The right to be informed of the authority and purpose of the summons
- The right to sufficient time to prepare and produce the required documents
- The right to receive a copy of any statement that the department intends to use against them
- The right to consult records and refresh memory before answering questions
- The right to avoid self-incrimination, subject to the limits defined by the Constitution and case law
These rights have been reinforced through judicial interpretations, which have emphasised that an inquiry must be conducted within the framework of procedural fairness.
Voluntariness and Admissibility of Statements
Statements made in response to summons must be voluntary to be admissible. If a statement is obtained through coercion, threat, or inducement, it can be challenged in court. The admissibility of such statements under Section 136 of the CGST Act hinges on their voluntary nature.
The department must also provide a copy of the statement to the person concerned if it intends to rely on it in proceedings. Courts have repeatedly held that the principle of natural justice requires the person to know and respond to the evidence against them.
Presence of Legal Counsel
The presence of legal counsel during examination under summons has been a contentious issue. While the Supreme Court has held that there is no automatic right to have an advocate present within hearing range, some High Courts have allowed lawyers to be within visible but non-audible distance.
This compromise seeks to balance the department’s need for unimpeded questioning with the individual’s need for legal reassurance. Departmental instructions suggest that such requests, when reasonable, may be accommodated without compromising the inquiry.
Recording of Statements
The process of recording statements should be conducted in a transparent and orderly manner. Statements should preferably be recorded during office hours and without unnecessary delay. The questions and answers should be documented accurately, read over to the person, and signed by both the individual and the officer.
If the person wishes to make corrections or clarifications, these should be recorded immediately. This ensures the integrity of the statement and reduces the scope for later disputes about its contents.
Production of Documents
When a summons requires the production of documents, the notice should specify the documents clearly to avoid ambiguity. These may include invoices, ledgers, bank statements, contracts, purchase orders, shipping documents, or correspondence. The officer should examine the documents and, if necessary, take certified copies or retain originals against a proper receipt.
Documents produced under summons may later be used as evidence in adjudication or prosecution, provided they are obtained in accordance with the law.
Safeguards Against Misuse of Summons
The legal framework incorporates several safeguards to prevent overreach:
- Requirement of prior approval from senior officers
- Preference for letters of requisition over summons when feasible
- Recording of reasons for issuance
- Avoidance of repeated summons for the same information
- Consideration of the availability of information on the GST portal before issuing summons
Courts have emphasised that summons should be issued only when necessary and proportionate to the objectives of the investigation.
Judicial Scrutiny of Summons
The judiciary plays an active role in reviewing the validity of summons. High Courts have quashed summons that were issued without adequate justification or for purposes unrelated to the inquiry. They have also restrained officers from compelling the creation of documents in a new format when the originals are already available.
These rulings reinforce the principle that summons are not a tool for harassment but a procedural mechanism for gathering essential evidence.
Consequences of Ignoring a Summons
Non-compliance with a summons without reasonable cause can lead to monetary penalties, arrest warrants, attachment of property, and other coercive measures. The penalty under Section 122(3)(d) of the CGST Act applies irrespective of the outcome of the main case, making it an independent liability.
In extreme cases, wilful defiance may also attract criminal prosecution under the Indian Penal Code for obstructing a public servant or giving false evidence.
Best Practices for Responding to a Summons
For individuals and businesses, a careful and well-prepared response to a summons can prevent unnecessary complications. Recommended practices include:
- Reviewing the summons carefully to understand its scope
- Seeking legal or professional advice if needed
- Preparing all required documents in an organised manner
- Attending at the appointed time to avoid allegations of non-compliance
- Providing truthful and accurate information
- Requesting a copy of the recorded statement for personal records
Adopting such measures ensures compliance while safeguarding one’s legal position.
Departmental Responsibilities in Conducting Inquiries
Just as the summoned person has obligations, the department has responsibilities to conduct the inquiry fairly. Officers must:
- Respect the dignity and rights of the individual
- Avoid prolonged detention or unreasonable questioning
- Ensure that questioning is relevant to the purpose of the summons
- Maintain confidentiality of sensitive information
- Avoid summoning for matters already clarified in earlier proceedings
Following these principles not only ensures procedural compliance but also enhances the credibility of the department’s investigative process.
Interplay with Other Laws
GST summons proceedings often intersect with other laws, such as the Customs Act, the Companies Act, and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Information obtained through a summons may be shared with other agencies when legally permitted, but such sharing must comply with confidentiality provisions.
The use of evidence across multiple proceedings raises complex legal questions, particularly regarding admissibility and the rights of the individual. Courts have generally upheld the use of such evidence, provided it is obtained lawfully.
Strategic Importance of Summons in Investigations
Summons are often a turning point in departmental investigations. They provide officers with a legal mechanism to obtain primary evidence directly from the source. The scope is not limited to the taxpayer but extends to third parties such as suppliers, customers, transporters, or bankers. The information gathered through this process can help the department reconstruct the sequence of transactions, identify undisclosed income streams, and detect misclassification of goods or services.
In practice, the department may issue a series of summons to different entities to piece together the full picture of the transaction chain. The ability to compel attendance and production of records under statutory authority significantly enhances the reach of the investigation.
Constitutional Context of Summons Proceedings
While the GST law empowers officers to conduct inquiries, such powers are subject to constitutional safeguards. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, meaning that the power to summon must be exercised uniformly and without discrimination. Arbitrary use of this power can be challenged as a violation of this provision.
Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to carry on any trade or business. Frequent or repetitive summons that disrupt business operations without adequate justification could be argued as unreasonable restrictions on this right. However, reasonable restrictions in the interest of revenue collection and prevention of evasion are permissible.
Article 20(3) is particularly significant, as it protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. Courts have clarified that this protection applies only after a person becomes formally accused in criminal proceedings. Until that stage, a person may be legally bound to answer questions truthfully in an inquiry.
The Role of Judicial Precedents
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in defining the contours of the summons power. In P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India, the Telangana High Court emphasised that an inquiry under GST is judicial in nature for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code, but it is not a criminal trial. This classification ensures that giving false evidence or obstructing the inquiry can attract penalties under criminal law, while still maintaining the focus on evidence gathering.
In Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court held that revenue officers are not considered police officers for the purposes of the Evidence Act. As a result, confessions made before them are admissible, provided they are voluntary. This distinction has continued relevance under GST.
Other notable cases have clarified limits on summons. In A.S. Corporation v. Union of India, the Gujarat High Court ruled against issuing further summons when all required documents were already with the department, unless new evidence warranted it. In Ebiz.Com Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, the court held that officers cannot compel a person to prepare documents in a format that does not already exist.
Procedural Integrity in Conducting Inquiries
For summons to achieve their intended purpose without legal challenge, procedural integrity is crucial. Officers must:
- Clearly record the reasons for issuing the summons
- Ensure that the summons is served in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure
- Limit questioning to matters relevant to the inquiry
- Avoid unnecessarily summoning individuals multiple times for the same matter
- Maintain a complete record of questions asked, answers given, and documents produced
Failure to adhere to these principles can undermine the credibility of the inquiry and result in judicial intervention.
Post-Summons Stages – From Inquiry to Adjudication
Once the inquiry is complete, the department evaluates the information gathered. Depending on the findings, possible outcomes include:
- Closure of the investigation if no discrepancies are found
- Issuance of a show cause notice for recovery of tax, interest, and penalty
- Initiation of arrest proceedings under Section 69 for serious offences
- Launching of prosecution for wilful evasion or obstruction
The transition from summons to adjudication is not automatic; it requires an assessment of the strength of evidence and compliance with procedural requirements.
Use of Summons Statements in Subsequent Proceedings
Statements recorded under summons are often relied upon in adjudication and prosecution. Under Section 136 of the CGST Act, such statements are admissible as evidence. However, the department must ensure that the statement is voluntary, unambiguous, and relevant to the matter at hand.
If the department intends to rely on a statement, it must furnish a copy to the concerned person to allow an opportunity for rebuttal. This requirement is rooted in the principles of natural justice and has been reaffirmed in multiple judgments.
Challenges in Cross-Examination
In certain cases, a person may seek to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the department. The right to cross-examination is not absolute in administrative proceedings, but where the statement forms the sole basis for a finding, denial of cross-examination could be a ground for setting aside the order.
Courts have adopted a balanced approach, granting cross-examination where it is essential for establishing the truth, while preventing it from being used as a delay tactic.
Role of Technology in Summons Proceedings
Digitalisation has transformed how summons are issued and complied with. In some jurisdictions, summons may be served electronically through email or portal-based communication, provided the law recognises such service. Similarly, documents may be submitted in electronic format, reducing the need for physical visits.
However, electronic service also raises questions about proof of delivery, authenticity of documents, and digital signatures. Clear protocols are essential to address these challenges while maintaining the evidentiary value of the material.
Handling Sensitive and Confidential Information
During summons proceedings, officers often receive sensitive business information such as pricing policies, trade secrets, or client lists. Maintaining confidentiality is not just an ethical obligation but also a legal requirement under certain provisions. Any unauthorised disclosure could lead to claims of breach of trust and, in some cases, legal liability for the department.
Departments typically have internal protocols for safeguarding such information, including restricted access, secure storage, and controlled dissemination.
Strategies for Responding to Complex Summons
When a summons is broad in scope or demands extensive documentation, it is prudent for the summoned person to:
- Seek clarity on the specific nature of the inquiry
- Provide documents in a phased manner if the volume is large
- Maintain an inventory of all documents submitted
- Record any objections or clarifications in writing at the time of submission
- Engage professional assistance to ensure accuracy and compliance
Such strategies help in demonstrating cooperation while also preserving one’s legal position in case of future disputes.
Interaction Between GST Summons and Other Investigations
Often, the same set of transactions may attract the attention of multiple agencies, such as customs authorities, income tax, or enforcement directorates. Information obtained through a GST summons may be shared with these agencies, subject to statutory permissions. Conversely, information from other agencies may prompt the issuance of GST summons.
While this inter-agency coordination can improve the efficiency of enforcement, it also increases the complexity for the person under investigation. Maintaining consistency in statements and documents becomes critical to avoid contradictions.
International Dimensions of Summons
In certain cases involving cross-border transactions, GST summons may require information from foreign suppliers, overseas branches, or international logistics partners. While the department cannot directly compel foreign entities, it can request information through mutual legal assistance treaties, exchange of information agreements, or by summoning the Indian counterpart who has access to the relevant records.
Such cases often involve additional layers of compliance, including adherence to foreign laws on data protection and privacy.
Judicial Remedies Against Improper Summons
If a person believes that a summons is unlawful, arbitrary, or issued for an ulterior motive, they may approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. The court may quash the summons, modify its terms, or issue directions to ensure fairness.
However, courts are generally reluctant to interfere at the investigative stage unless there is a clear case of abuse of power. Filing a judicial challenge should be carefully considered, as it may delay the investigation but could also escalate tensions with the department.
Balancing Investigative Powers with Business Continuity
One of the recurring concerns of businesses is the disruptive effect of repeated summons on daily operations. While attending a summons is a legal obligation, the department is expected to schedule appearances in a manner that minimises disruption.
Advance notice, reasonable deadlines, and flexibility in rescheduling are encouraged to maintain cooperation. Courts have supported the view that investigative powers must be exercised in a manner that does not unnecessarily impair legitimate business activities.
Training and Accountability of Officers
To ensure the responsible use of summons powers, training programmes for officers emphasise legal requirements, ethical conduct, and effective communication skills. Internal audits and supervisory reviews are conducted to identify patterns of misuse or overuse. Where misconduct is established, disciplinary action may be taken against the officer. Such measures help maintain public trust in the fairness and professionalism of the department.
Conclusion
The power to summon under Section 70 of the CGST Act is a cornerstone of the GST enforcement framework, enabling officers to gather evidence, secure documents, and record statements essential for uncovering non-compliance and preventing revenue leakage. While the provision is succinct in its wording, judicial interpretations and departmental instructions have shaped its application, striking a balance between investigative efficiency and protection of individual rights.
Over time, courts have clarified that these inquiries are judicial in nature for the limited purpose of enforcing truthful participation, yet they remain distinct from criminal trials. The scope of summons is broad, covering taxpayers, third parties, and any person in possession of relevant information. At the same time, misuse of this power whether through repeated, unnecessary calls for appearance, or demands for documents already in possession has been checked through legal challenges and administrative guidelines.
For summoned individuals and businesses, compliance is not optional; it is a statutory obligation carrying independent penalties for default. However, cooperation does not mean surrendering one’s legal safeguards. Responding with clarity, keeping accurate records of submissions, and seeking professional guidance when necessary are prudent ways to protect both operational continuity and legal standing.
On the administrative side, responsible exercise of summons power calls for documented reasons, proportionate requests, and respect for procedural fairness. Technological integration, confidentiality protocols, and inter-agency coordination can enhance both efficiency and transparency in the process.
Ultimately, the summons mechanism works best when it is viewed not as a tool of intimidation, but as a legitimate investigative step, grounded in law, guided by judicial precedent, and executed with fairness. A balanced approach ensures that revenue interests are protected without undermining constitutional rights, fostering a climate of compliance built on trust and accountability rather than coercion.