1. Since the issues raised in both the captioned writ applications are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Civil Application No.12019 of 2019 is treated as the lead matter.

3. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside summons dated 9.5.2019, 13.5.2019, 17.5.2019, 28.5.2019, 31.5.2019, 12.6.2019 and 14.6.2019 and any subsequent summons which may be issued by respondent no.2 under Section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017.

(B) Pension hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of summons dated 9.5.2019, 13.5.2019, 17.5.2019, 28.5.2019, 31.5.2019, 12.6.2019 and 14.6.2019 issued by respondent no.2 under Section 70 of the Central GST Act, 2017.

(C) An ex­parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (B) above may kindly be granted including suitable protection against any coercive actions that may be made by the respondents.

(D) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.”

4. Thus, the subject matter of challenge in the present litigation is to the summons issued by the respondent No.2 to the writ applicant under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.

5. On 17th July 2019, this Court passed the following order:

“1.00. Let NOTICE be issued to the respondents returnable on 24/07/2019.

2.00. Having heard Mr.Nachiket Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the writ applicant has been able to make out a strong prima facie case to have some interim order in his favour.

3.00. Till the next returnable date, no coercive action or any coercive steps shall be taken by the authorities against the writ applicant.

4.00. In the meantime, the writ applicant shall appear before the concerned authority and make good his stance as regards discharge of the entire liability towards the tax.

On the next returnable date, the concerned authority shall file appropriate reply as regards the liability of the writ applicant as sought to be enforced by issuing Summons under section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.

One copy of the Paper Book shall be furnished to Ms.Maithili Mehta, learned AGP by the end of the day today.

D.S. is permitted.”

6 We have heard Mr. Prabhav Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant of the Special Civil Application No.12019 of 2019, Mr. Nachiket Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant of the connected writ application and Mr. Parth Divyeshvar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

7 Mr. Divyeshvar invited the attention of this Court to few relevant averments made in the affidavit­in­reply filed on behalf of the respondents, more particularly, the observations in para 11. The relevant observations read thus:

“Finally, Hon’ble Court may also refer its own oral order dated 17/07/2019 of this present application, wherein it was directed that:­

“4.00 In the meantime, the writ applicant shall appear before the concerned authority and make good his stance as regards discharge of the entire liability towards the tax.”

The copy of above said order dated 17/07/2019 is marked herewith as Annexure R2.

Shri Dhirendra Singh appeared before the department on 22/7/2019and 13/01/2020 to tender his statement. However, in his statement dated22/07/2019 and 23/07/2019he neither accepted any liability nor provided any documentary evidences to deny the facts/evidences presented by department to Shri Dhirendra Singh during his statement dated 22/07/2019 and 23/07/2019. Further during the statement, Shri Dhirendra Singh has not provided any details regarding the entire GST liability of M /s. Manpasand Beverages Limited. The replies in his statement are ambiguous and evasive to derail the investigation.

In this respect, it is to submit that to ascertain the entire liability, it is essential to verify Sales and the Input Tax Credit availed by M/s. MBL and presently M / s. MBL is in possession of Sales and Purchase invoices of company except invoices and documents seized by the department vide Panchnamas dated 01/02/2019 and 23 / 05 / 2019. Further, the CGST department vide letter 06/08/ 19, 19/08/2019, 26/08/2019 and 02/01/2020to Shri Dhirendra. Singh was already issued requesting to submit the sales and purchase invoices to ascertain entire liability which have not been produced till date. The copy of above referred letters dated 06/08/19, 19/08/2019, 26/08/2019 and 02/01/2020 is marked herewith as per Annexure ˙R3 ’collective1y. Further, a summons dated 08/01/2020 have been issued to Shri Dhirendra Singh to submit the remaining sales and purchase invoices. In response to above summon dated 08/01/2010, Shri Dhirendra Singh appeared on 13/01/2020 before the department and this time, Shri Dhirendra Singh could not produce the requisite documents for the purpose of investigation / to arrive at final GST liability evaded by M/s Manpasand Beverages Ltd. Non submission of documents & non cooperative nature is hampering the ongoing investigations.

Therefore, it appears that Shri Dhirendra Singh knowingly flouted the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and failed to comply with direction imparted by the Hon’ble High court vide order dated 17/07/2019.

M/s Manpasand Beverages Ltd, Sh. Abhishek Singh, MD, Sh.Harshvardhan Singh son of Sh. Dhirendra Singh and Sh. Paresh Thakkar, CFO of M/ s Manpasand Beverages Ltd have contravened the provisions of Section 16 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, as amended in as much as they have knowingly availed ineligible input tax credit and used the same in payment of GST liability. Thus it makes it evident that the above named persons with approval of Shri Dhirendra Singh, CMD of the company willfully created dummy/ fake companies to engage in trading of invoices without any actual movement of goods. All these acts of omission and commission on part of Sh. Abhishek Singh, MD of M/s MBL, Sh. Harshvardhan Singh s/ o Sh. Dhirendra Singh and Sh. PareshThakkar, CFO of M/s MBL, constitutes an offence in terms of Section 132(1)(b) & (1)(c) and Section 132(1)(l) of the CGST Act, 2017 in as much as they have wrongfully availed ITC without actual receipt of goods and abetted the commission of offence. And by these acts of commission and omission, these persons are liable for punishment in terms of Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, wherein the maximum punishment is for 5 years of imprisonment and fine. Further, in terms of Section 132(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, these offences are cognizable and non­billable. The role of Dhirendra Singh, CMD as the kingpin and mastermind of the fraud cannot be undermined at this stage of investigation.

12. It is to submit that the department had produced all three persons before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, and the CJ M Court has sent all three accused under the judicial custody. Thereafter Bail Applications f led by all three persons have been dismissed by the Hon’ble Court of CJM,  Vadodara vide order dated 29/05/2019 and by the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Vadodara vide order dated 06/07/2019 after going through the facts and evidences produced by the CGST department in the matter.”

8. Thus, it appears that the writ applicant appeared before the respondent No.2 in response to the summons issued to him under Section 70 of the Act under the protection of this Court. He was interrogated by the respondent No.2. Later, once again, a summons was issued on 8th January 2020 to the writ applicant and in response to the said summons, the writ applicant appeared before the authority on 13th January 2020. However, the writ applicant failed to produce the requisite documents relevant for the purpose of investigation. This is what has been stated in the affidavit­in­reply.

9. It appears on the basis of the materials on record that the only idea of preferring the two writ applications at the relevant point of time was to evade arrest. The apprehension on the part of the writ applicants at the relevant point of time was that if they would appear before the authority pursuant to the summons, then they would be arrested.

10. As such, there is no good ground much less any legal ground to question the legality and validity of a summons issued under Section 70 of the Act, 2017. As such, as on date, both the writ applications could be said to have become infructuous. However, both the learned counsel vociferously submitted that the writ applicants have deposited a huge amount with the department and the adjudication with regard to their liability is yet to take place, and therefore, the interim protection earlier granted by this Court should continue till everything is finalized. We are not inclined to extend the protection any further.

11. Mr. Divyeshvar would submit that the department does not require the presence of the writ applicants any further. The department would like to now proceed further in accordance with law.

12. In view of such statement being made by Mr. Divyeshvar, nothing more is required to be adjudicated. Even as on date, if the writ applicants have an apprehension that they would be arrested any time, it is open for them to take recourse available to them in accordance with law to take care of such a situation.

13. With the above, both the writ applications are disposed of. Notice stands discharged. The interim protection earlier granted stands vacated.

14. It shall be open for the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law.