Summons: Section 70

A summons under the GST Act is a demand to appear. It may be addressed to the taxpayer, to a director or employee, to a supplier or customer, or to anyone else whose evidence the officer considers necessary. It carries legal force. The person summoned is bound to attend and to tell the truth, and the inquiry is treated as a judicial proceeding for the law on false evidence. It is also the point at which people most often ask what the officer may require, whether they are being treated as an accused, and whether a lawyer may come with them.

This guide covers section 70, the CBIC instructions that govern summons issued by central tax officers, and what the Supreme Court has said about the position of a person summoned. It describes the power and its safeguards as the provisions and instructions state them. State tax officers exercise the same power under the State GST Acts and work under their own administration’s instructions.

The power

Section 70(1) reads:

The proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Three features matter.

Any person. The power is not limited to the registered person under inquiry. A summons can go to anyone whose evidence or documents the officer considers necessary.

Evidence or documents. A summons may require a person to give evidence, or to produce “a document or any other thing”, or both.

In an inquiry. The power exists “in any inquiry”. CBIC’s Instruction No. 01/2023-24-GST (Inv.) puts the limit this way: “the scope of summons is in the wording of section 70”, and a summons “with context or content akin to a fishing inquiry is not acceptable”.

The duty to attend, and the 2024 change

Section 70(1A) was inserted by section 135 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. It came into force on 1 November 2024, under Notification No. 17/2024-Central Tax:

All persons summoned under sub-section (1) shall be bound to attend, either in person or by an authorised representative, as such officer may direct, and the person so appearing shall state the truth during examination or make statements or produce such documents and other things as may be required.

The sub-section does three things:

• it binds every person summoned to attend
• it allows attendance “either in person or by an authorised representative”, but “as such officer may direct”. The choice is the officer’s, stated in the summons, not the person’s
• it requires the person appearing to state the truth and to make statements or produce documents “as may be required”

A judicial proceeding

Section 70(2) provides that every such inquiry “shall be deemed to be a ‘judicial proceedings’ within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code”. CBIC’s published text of the section still cites the Penal Code. The Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. Under section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a reference to a repealed provision is read as a reference to the provision that re-enacts it.

The corresponding provisions of the Sanhita are:

• section 229, punishment for false evidence (formerly section 193)
• section 267, intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in a judicial proceeding (formerly section 228)

Failure to appear in response to a summons is separately liable to a penalty under section 122(3)(d). That penalty “may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees”.

How a summons is to be issued: CBIC’s instructions

Two instructions govern summons issued by central tax officers.

Instruction No. 03/2022-23 (GST-Investigation), of 17 August 2022. It was issued after summons had gone “to the top senior officials of the companies in a routine manner”, and to call for returns already on the portal. Its directions include:

• Summons are generally issued by Superintendents. A Superintendent needs “prior written permission from an officer not below the rank of Deputy/Assistant Commissioner with the reasons for issuance of summons to be recorded in writing”. Where that is not possible for operational reasons, oral permission is to be reduced to writing at the earliest opportunity.
• Summons “should normally indicate the name of the offender(s) against whom the case is being investigated”, unless that would harm the investigation. The aim is that the person has “prima-facie understanding as whether he has been summoned as an accused, co-accused or as witness”.
• Summons “may be avoided to call upon statutory documents which are digitally/ online available in the GST portal”.
• Senior management such as the CMD, MD, CEO or CFO “should not generally be issued summons in the first instance”. They are to be summoned only “when there are clear indications … of their involvement in the decision making process which led to loss of revenue”.
• The summoning officer “must be present at the time and date for which summons is issued”, or inform the person in advance.
• Repeated summons without ensuring service “must be avoided”. Where a person does not appear after “generally three summons at reasonable intervals”, a complaint may be filed before the Magistrate. The instruction refers to the Penal Code offences of absconding to avoid service and of non-attendance, now sections 206 and 208 of the Sanhita. Service must first be ensured under section 169.
• The officer must record in the file the person’s appearance or non-appearance, and place the statement on file.

Instruction No. 01/2023-24-GST (Inv.), of 30 March 2024. This sets “ease of doing business” guidelines for investigations involving regular taxpayers. On summons and letters it says:

• For a listed company, PSU, corporation, government department or statutory authority, the practice is to start with an official letter (instead of summons) to the entity’s designated officer. The letter details the reasons for the investigation and the legal provisions, and gives a reasonable time. A departure must be “backed by written reasons”.
• A letter or summons must “disclose the specific nature of the inquiry”. Vague expressions such as “GST enquiry” or “evasion of GST” “must not be mentioned”.
• Information “available digitally/online on GST portal should not be called for”, and summons are not to be used to have the person fill in formats or proformas.
• Questions such as “please clarify whether ITC availed and utilized was proper” are “not acceptable”.
• The content of a summons needs “prior reasoned approval” of an officer not below Deputy or Assistant Commissioner. The approval covers what is sought and a reasonable time for compliance.
• The relevance and propriety of what is sought must be recorded beforehand, “so as not to have repeated issuance of summons or seeking piecemeal information”.
• A scanned copy of a statement recorded under summons is to be uploaded to the e-office file.
• For an ongoing investigation, the Additional or Joint Commissioner in charge is the grievance officer.

The DIN, and how a summons can be verified

CBIC’s Circular No. 122/41/2019-GST made a Document Identification Number mandatory on communications from central officers, including summons. Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST extended it and prescribed the format of summons. A communication issued without a DIN, outside the exigencies the circular lists, “shall be treated as invalid and shall be deemed to have never been issued”. Communications issued without one in an exigency must say so expressly and be regularised within fifteen working days.

Two later circulars recognise other verifiable numbers:

• Circular No. 249/06/2025-GST (9 June 2025). A communication issued through the GST common portal that bears a Reference Number (RFN), verifiable on the portal, needs no separate DIN.
• Circular No. 252/09/2025-GST (23 September 2025). For a communication sent through CBIC’s eOffice using the public option, the “Issue number”, verifiable at verifydocument.cbic.gov.in, “shall be deemed to be the Document Identification Number”.

All other communications must still quote a DIN generated through the DIN utility.

The statement

What a person says in response to a summons is recorded as a statement. The person signs it, and the officer signs it as recorded “before me”. Section 136 makes such a statement relevant in a prosecution “for the purpose of proving … the truth of the facts which it contains” in two situations only:

• where the maker is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, is kept out of the way, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense
• where the maker is examined as a witness and the court considers the statement should be admitted in the interest of justice

Is a person summoned an accused?

The Supreme Court has said not. In Radhika Agarwal v Union of India (27 February 2025), a batch of cases challenged the arrest and summons provisions of the Customs and GST Acts. The Court rejected the challenge to the validity of sections 69 and 70. It clarified that “a person summoned under Section 70 of the GST Acts is not per se an accused protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution”, because the protection against self-incrimination “does not go back to the stage of interrogation”. It added that “the investigation must be allowed to proceed in accordance with law”, and that “at the same time, there should not be any misuse of power and authority”.

The Court applied the same point in Union of India v Sunil Biyani (12 August 2026). The respondent had been found present during an inspection of a company under investigation by the DGGI, and had been summoned three times under section 70. He applied for anticipatory bail. The Court affirmed the High Court’s refusal: he had “merely been summoned”, and “mere issuance of summons under Section 70 … does not make the person summoned an accused”. It also held that an order of the Commissioner under section 69 authorising arrest must be communicated to the person sought to be arrested.

At its 57th meeting on 8 October 2026, the GST Council recommended “complete withdrawal of arrest powers under GST by omission of section 69”. That is recommended, not yet enacted. The recommendation does not touch section 70.

A lawyer at the questioning

Section 70 and the CBIC instructions say nothing about a lawyer accompanying a person who is summoned. The Supreme Court has answered the question in cases under the Customs Act and related laws, and in Radhika Agarwal it relied on the leading one, Poolpandi, in describing the position of a person summoned under section 70.

No general right. In Poolpandi v Superintendent, Central Excise (14 May 1992), a three-judge bench held that a person called for questioning under the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not entitled to the presence of his lawyer. The Court distinguished such a person from “an accused in a criminal case”. It set aside the part of a Delhi High Court judgment that had allowed lawyers to be present.

Within sight, not hearing, on the facts of a case. In Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI v Jugal Kishore Samra (5 July 2011), the respondent had been summoned by the DRI in an NDPS case. He alleged ill-treatment at an earlier visit, and had a serious heart condition. The Court followed Poolpandi on the general position. It then directed, “having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case”, that his interrogation “may be held within the sight of his advocate”. The advocate “will not be within the hearing distance”, and no consultation would be allowed during the interrogation.

For a person arrested. In Radhika Agarwal, the Court restated the Samra direction when holding that section 41-D of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies to arrests under the Customs Act. Accordingly, “a person arrested by a customs officer has the right to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation, but not throughout interrogation”. The Court held that its reasoning on how the Code applies to the Customs Act applies “to a large extent” to the GST Acts as well. The holding concerns a person under arrest; for a person summoned, the same judgment relied on Poolpandi.

So, on the Supreme Court’s decisions:

• a person summoned under section 70 has no general right to have a lawyer present during questioning
• a court may direct presence within sight but not hearing on the facts of a particular case
• section 70(1A) allows attendance “by an authorised representative” only where the officer so directs; that is attendance in place of the person, not a lawyer sitting in on the person’s own examination

Summons, in order

1. The summons issues from the proper officer. For central officers, a Superintendent needs prior written approval, with reasons, from a Deputy or Assistant Commissioner.
2. The summons carries a DIN, or a portal RFN, or an eOffice Issue number that can be verified online. Without one, outside the listed exigencies, CBIC treats it as never issued.
3. It states the specific nature of the inquiry and, normally, the name of the person under investigation, so that the recipient can tell whether he is summoned as a witness or otherwise.
4. The person summoned is bound to attend, in person or by an authorised representative as the officer directs, to state the truth, and to produce what is required.
5. The statement is recorded and signed. It is relevant in a prosecution only in the circumstances in section 136.
6. Non-attendance is liable to a penalty of up to Rs 25,000 under section 122(3)(d). After repeated summons, it may lead to a complaint before a Magistrate.
7. A person summoned is not, on that account alone, an accused. There is no general right to a lawyer’s presence during questioning.

This is the last guide in the set on assessment, audit and enforcement. The set begins with the kinds of assessment, and the series it accompanies ends with appeals and pre-deposit.