Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Revenue [TU-IDT-03-HC-2026]
Background of the Case
The Appellants approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the manner in which summons proceedings were being conducted under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. A summons had been issued to Appellant No.2 in connection with an inquiry relating to input tax credit availed by Appellant No.1 company on purchases allegedly made from two suppliers whose GST registrations were subsequently cancelled. The department initiated inquiry to examine the genuineness of such transactions. The Appellants confined their relief to a limited request seeking permission for Appellant No.2 to be accompanied by an advocate during the recording of statements and for the proceedings to be videographed at their own cost. Other broader prayers in the writ petition were not pressed at this stage.
Arguments by the Appellant
The Appellants contended that the transactions in question were genuine, duly supported by valid tax invoices, reflected in GSTR-2B returns and payments were made through proper banking channels. It was submitted that cancellation of suppliers’ registrations was under challenge in statutory appeals and the Appellants were willing to fully cooperate in the inquiry. A significant submission was that Appellant No.2 was undergoing treatment for cancer and humanitarian consideration was warranted. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in Suumaya Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, it was argued that similar directions permitting videography and presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance had previously been granted. The Appellants clarified that the advocate would not interfere in the recording of statements and that videography would be conducted at their own expense.
Respondent’s Response
The respondents opposed the petition and submitted that Appellant No.2 was required to cooperate with the inquiry and furnish necessary documents as called for by the department. It was contended that the proceedings were conducted in official premises equipped with CCTV cameras and therefore additional directions for videography were not warranted. The department emphasized that the inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act was being conducted strictly in accordance with law. The respondents resisted the prayer for additional safeguards, arguing that existing mechanisms were sufficient to ensure fairness. However, they did not dispute that the Appellants had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Court Findings and Decision
The Bombay High Court observed that the request made by the Appellants could have been appropriately considered by the authorities, especially in light of Appellant No.2’s medical condition. The Court noted that in Suumaya Industries Ltd., a coordinate Bench had accepted a similar arrangement permitting videography and presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance. Taking into account the nature of the inquiry under Section 70 and the Appellant’s willingness to cooperate, the Court allowed the limited relief sought. It directed that the statements of Appellant No.2 be videographed at the Appellants’ cost and permitted the advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance without interfering in the proceedings. However, the Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
To download official order, Click Here
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”