2021 (10) TMI 364 - DSC - GST

Seeking monitoring of investigation filed - Summon order - petitioner has submitted that the respondent department is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner by not marking his presence whenever he turns up in response to join the investigation - Seeking permission to have access to his counsel during the course of enquiries - HELD THAT - The undersigned is of the opinion that the factum whether the petitioner is joining the investigation as per the directions of the Hon ble High Court is a matter of fact. It is also undeniable that it is the foremost requirement to undergo/join the investigation procedure as directed by the Hon ble High Court. Considering the totality in circumstances as already discussed, this court hereby directs that the petitioner shall join the investigation tomorrow at 4 00 PM by appearing in person before the Competent Officer of the respondent department. He shall be entitled to have the access to his counsel during the course of enquiries. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Application seeking monitoring of investigation, Allegations of harassment and non-cooperation by the respondent department, Access to counsel during investigation

Application seeking monitoring of investigation:
The petitioner, alleged owner of a firm, raised concerns about being summoned based on forged documents and harassed during investigation. Anticipatory bail was granted earlier, and the petitioner complied with investigation directions. However, repeated summonses and alleged coercive actions caused distress. The petitioner sought relief through the application.

Allegations of harassment and non-cooperation by the respondent department:
The respondent department contended that the petitioner's firm was non-existent at the given address but issued significant invoices and conducted transactions. They accused the petitioner of non-compliance with investigation procedures and manipulating attendance records. The department claimed ongoing investigation progress and the petitioner's lack of cooperation as reasons to dismiss the application.

Access to counsel during investigation:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent department harassed the petitioner by not acknowledging his presence during investigations and pressuring him to provide specific statements. They requested access for the petitioner's counsel during inquiries to ensure a smooth process. The respondent department, while not opposing counsel presence, emphasized the petitioner's non-cooperation and lack of legal basis for the application.

The court carefully considered both parties' arguments and observed the importance of the petitioner's compliance with the High Court's investigation directives. It acknowledged the need for the petitioner to join the investigation as per court orders and directed the petitioner to appear before the Competent Officer of the respondent department. The court allowed the petitioner access to counsel during the investigation but emphasized that counsel presence should not obstruct the inquiry process. The application was disposed of with these directions, ensuring both sides received a copy of the order for compliance.