2020 (12) TMI 997 - HC - GST

Permission to allow the petitioners', their employees / representatives to have presence of their Advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the course of interrogation and / or recording of their statement - petitioners are apprehensive that coercive attempts may be made to extort confession from them - HELD THAT - This Court, in light of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time, as in similar circumstances the apex Court directed that the advocate of the petitioner should be allowed to be present during the interrogation of the petitioner, is of the opinion that the advocate of the petitioners are to be allowed to be present during the interrogation of the petitioners. It is further clarified that he/they should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible distance and the lawyer must be prepared to be present whenever the petitioners are called upon to attend such interrogation. Petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioners receiving summons from Directorate General of GST Intelligence under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, seeking relief to have their advocate present during interrogation and recording of statements.

Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in trading "Arecanut," sought relief through a writ petition, expressing their willingness to cooperate with investigations but fearing coercive tactics by the respondent during interrogation. They requested the presence of their advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the process. Citing previous judgments, the petitioners argued for similar relief granted in other cases. The Bombay High Court's order in a different case supported the petitioners' plea to allow their advocate during interrogation. The petitioners' request aligned with a 3 Judge Bench Judgment, where the Supreme Court directed allowing advocates to be present during interrogation within visible distance but beyond hearing range. The Directorate of GST Intelligence did not dispute the previous orders but opposed the petitioners' prayer.

The High Court, considering the Supreme Court's past directives, agreed with the petitioners' stance that their advocates should be present during interrogation. The court clarified that advocates must sit at a distance beyond hearing range but within visible distance and be available whenever the petitioners are called for interrogation. Consequently, the court partially allowed the writ petition, granting the relief sought by the petitioners. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal representation during interrogation while ensuring a fair process.