2021 (12) TMI 1224 - HC - GST

Seeking direction to allow the presence of applicant s advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the course of interrogation and/or recording of the statement of the applicant - HELD THAT - Considering the role attributed to the present applicant in the alleged transaction, the applicant s advocate is permitted to be present during interrogation of the applicant, but he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible distance and the concerned advocate must be prepared to be present whenever the applicant is called upon to attend the interrogation. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Presence of applicant's advocate during interrogation and recording of statement
- Allegations of involvement in fraudulent transactions and fake firms
- Issuance of summons under Section 70 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
- Applicant's defense and explanation regarding his role in the transactions
- Arguments by both parties regarding the necessity of recording the applicant's statement
- Decision on permitting the presence of applicant's advocate during interrogation

Presence of Applicant's Advocate during Interrogation and Recording of Statement:
The applicant sought direction for the presence of his advocate during interrogation by the Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence. The court permitted the advocate to be present within visible but not audible distance during the applicant's interrogation, ensuring the advocate's availability whenever the applicant is called upon.

Allegations of Involvement in Fraudulent Transactions and Fake Firms:
The respondent, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, alleged that the applicant was involved in fraudulent transactions through fake firms. The firms in question were found to be fake, engaging in paper transactions and claiming input tax credit from non-existent entities. The applicant's role as an introducer for these firms raised suspicions regarding his involvement in the fraudulent activities.

Issuance of Summons under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017:
The Intelligence Officer issued summons to the applicant under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, regarding his alleged connection to the suspicious transactions. The applicant's statement was recorded, and subsequent summons were issued when the applicant failed to appear before the authority.

Applicant's Defense and Explanation:
The applicant maintained that he had no direct involvement in the alleged transactions of the fake firms. He clarified that his role as an introducer for the bank accounts was a result of his frequent visits to the bank and had no connection to the fraudulent activities. The applicant emphasized his cooperation with the investigation and denied any wrongdoing.

Arguments by Both Parties:
The applicant's advocate argued that no incriminating evidence linked the applicant to the fraudulent transactions, emphasizing the lack of formal notices under relevant sections of the Act. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the applicant's statement was crucial to determine his role in the conspiracy to defraud the government exchequer. They highlighted the need for further investigation based on the nexus established during the inquiry.

Decision on Permitting Advocate's Presence:
After considering the arguments and the applicant's alleged involvement, the court allowed the applicant's advocate to be present during interrogation, ensuring visibility without audibility. This decision aimed to balance the applicant's right to legal representation with the authority's investigative needs.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the application by granting the relief of allowing the applicant's advocate's presence during interrogation, maintaining a visible but non-audible distance, to address the concerns raised regarding the applicant's involvement in the alleged fraudulent transactions.