2018 (5) TMI 1981 - HC - GST

Interrogation of the party summoned - petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking direction upon the respondents to allow him to appear along with the counsel only during the office hours, not to harass him and to force him to give statement in the manner the department wants - HELD THAT - It is settled that no person can deny interrogation or putting questions to him during enquiry on the summons being issued to him. The person served with summons has to answer the questions put to him faithfully though he cannot be compelled to answer questions which are confusing and to which he cannot reply due to memory loss. The interrogation has to be made during the office hours and that in order to safeguard the person from ill treatment or use of third degree measure the presence of his Advocate may be permitted who may remain at a safe distance from where he may not listen to the questions and answers but may see the party. Since the petitioner has not appeared before the Superintendent, Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Meerut now he is directed to present himself on 30th May, 2018 or on any other date which may be informed to him by the aforesaid Officer on his appearance on 30th May, 2018. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Summon issued under Section 70 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 for appearance in an enquiry; Petitioner's request for appearing with counsel only during office hours; Apprehension of harassment and forced statement by the department; Legal principles governing interrogation during enquiry; Presence of advocate during interrogation; Compliance with summons and cooperation with the enquiry.

Analysis:
The petitioner, running a hotel and Desi wine shop, received a summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 to appear before the Chief Commissioner's office for an enquiry. The petitioner sought permission to appear with counsel only during office hours and raised concerns about potential harassment and forced statements by the department. The High Court noted that the summons required the petitioner to appear during office hours, dismissing the apprehension of being summoned after hours or forced to give evidence in a particular manner.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that a summoned party must make themselves available for interrogation, answer questions faithfully, and cannot be compelled to respond to confusing queries due to memory loss. The Court cited cases such as Ajit Jain Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India, emphasizing the right of a party to have their counsel present during interrogation within visible but not hearing range.

Further, the Court underscored that the presence of the party's advocate at a distance where they can see but not hear the interrogation does not interfere with the investigation process. Citing cases like Mahender Kumar Kundia Vs. Union of India and Shamrock Chemie Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the Court reiterated that interrogation should be conducted during office hours without the use of third-degree measures or ill-treatment.

In conclusion, the Court clarified that a person cannot refuse interrogation during an enquiry upon receiving a summons. Emphasizing the need for compliance with legal principles, the Court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the enquiry and present himself before the Chief Commissioner's office on a specified date. The petition was disposed of with the expectation that the authorities would adhere to the established legal principles during the interrogation process as per the summons issued to the petitioner.