The Bombay High Court allowed videography of GST summons proceedings and permitted legal counsel to remain present at a visible but non-audible distance during questioning, reinforcing procedural safeguards in tax investigations while hearing a writ petition under Article 226.
MUMBAI: In a significant ruling emphasizing procedural safeguards during tax investigations, the Bombay High Court has permitted videography of summons proceedings conducted by GST authorities and allowed legal counsel to be present at a visible but non-audible distance during questioning.
A Division Bench consisting of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe delivered this order while considering a writ petition filed by Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. and another entity under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court noted that the petitioners limited their requests to two specific safeguards:
- Allowing legal counsel to observe the questioning from a visible yet non-audible distance and
- Permitting videographic documentation of the proceedings at the petitioners’ expense.
ALSO READ: GST Summons Are For Inquiry, Not Custody: Bombay High Court
The summons involved were issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning an inquiry into the input tax credit claimed by the company.
Arguments Presented by the Parties
Advocate Abhishek A. Rastogi, representing the petitioners, contended that videography would serve as a neutral means of evidence protection for both the taxpayer and the authorities. He referred to a prior ruling in Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, where similar safeguards were accepted with the revenue’s consent, including video recording of statements and the presence of counsel at a non-audible distance.
Rastogi assured the court of the petitioner’s full cooperation with the inquiry and highlighted that there was no intention to evade taxes. The petitioner pointed out that the transactions under investigation were backed by tax invoices, were reflected in GSTR-2B returns, and payments were made through banking channels.
Opposition counsel for the respondents challenged the plea, asserting that the petitioner should cooperate with the inquiry and provide all necessary documents. They argued that the premises where the proceedings occurred were already equipped with CCTV cameras, making additional videography unnecessary.
Court’s Reasoning and Directives
After reviewing the records, the bench noted that the petitioner’s requests should have been duly considered by the relevant officials. The court observed that the inquiry stemmed from summons related to input tax credit claims involving purchases from suppliers whose GST registrations were subsequently cancelled.
Additionally, the bench recognized that Petitioner No. 2 was undergoing cancer treatment and was willing to cooperate with the investigation, which justified granting the limited relief sought.
The court ordered that statements recorded during the summons inquiry should be videographed at the petitioner’s expense. The petitioner’s attorney may accompany them but must maintain a visible yet non-audible distance without interfering with the statement recordings. The court clarified that this order was pronounced based on the unique facts of the case and should not be regarded as a precedent.
Legal experts suggest that this ruling highlights the courts’ ongoing commitment to procedural fairness in GST investigations. By allowing videography and conditional lawyer presence without interrupting the inquiry, the court aimed to balance investigative power with necessary safeguards.
Although the bench noted that the decision is not to be treated as a precedent, analysts pointed out that similar rulings in the past indicate that courts are open to implementing safeguards when taxpayers demonstrate cooperation and the circumstances warrant such relief.
For taxpayers and legal practitioners, this decision emphasizes that constitutional courts may influence the investigation process, even as inquiries continue under the GST framework.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
