Upon hearing the learned counsel for parties, the Court made the following order:

1. The matter is taken up virtually.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer:-

I. “Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling the record of the case and quash the summoning order dated 10.01.2022 issued to petitioners. (Annexure no. 06 to W.P.)

II. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not arrest the petitioners in pre-inquiry proceeding in pursuance of the summon dated 10.01.2022 issued to petitioner no. 2, 3 & 4 (Annexure no. 6 to W.P.)

III. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent authority not to arrest to petitioner in pursuance of notice issued under section 70 of CGST Act and impose such and other condition which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper to protect the liberty of the petitioners as petitioners are ready to co-operate with the inquiry proceeding.

IV. Issue writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

V. Award the cost to the petitioner throughtout.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that he has challenged the summoning order which is at Annexure 6, issued by the Inquiring Officer for recording the statement of the petitioner. He also cited certain orders passed by the Coordinate Bench, in which, stay orders have been granted restraining the respondents from arrest of the petitioner. However, this Court is of the opinion that a writ to quash a summoning order is not maintainable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to follow the orders passed by the learned Single Judge sitting in the Coordinate Bench, which do not constitute a binding precedent. However, keeping in view the apprehension of the petitioner, the submissions made by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel for the petitioner and the submissions made by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents, this Court observes that the petitioner shall appear before the Authority summoning him for recording his statement. However, this Court further directs that before taking any steps to arrest, the Commissioner of CGST, Dehradun shall comply the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 69 in letter and spirit. In other words, he must come to a definite conclusion that the petitioner has committed the offence as enshrined thereon, on the basis of credible materials and before authorizing any person to arrest the petitioner and the commissioner must record the reasons and material that he took into consideration in authorizing the officer to arrest him. A violation of this order shall be considered contempt of this Court.

5. On the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding denial of proper and legal representation at the time of Inquiry or recording of statement under Section 70 of the CGST Act, it is hereby directed that if the petitioner so wants, he may take a qualified person to help him in explaining the details. He shall not be detained in the office of the Commissioner, who is the summoning authority beyond the reasonable working hours.

6. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of.