Bombay High Court Allows Videography Of GST Summons Proceedings After Taxpayer Undertakes to Bear Cost

Taking note that a director of Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. is undergoing treatment for cancer and has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, the Bombay High Court permitted videography of summons proceedings under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

It also allowed his advocate to remain present at a visible but not audible distance during recording of the statement.

The Court clarified that the relief is confined to the facts of the case, observing, "We clarify that the present order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.”

A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. and its director under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The summons had been issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The inquiry pertains to input tax credit availed by the company on purchases “stated to have been made bona fide” from Zes Stock Enterprises and New Era Enterprises.

The company contended that the transactions were genuine. It submitted that the purchases were supported by valid tax invoices and reflected in GSTR-2B returns (an auto-generated statement under GST that reflects input tax credit available to a taxpayer based on suppliers' filings). Payments were made through proper banking channels.

It was also stated that the suppliers' GST registrations were cancelled and that statutory appeals filed by them are pending consideration.

The petition was confined to limited reliefs. The company sought that the statement be video recorded at its own cost and that its advocate be allowed to remain present during the summons proceedings.

The Revenue opposed the request. It submitted that the director must cooperate with the inquiry and that the proceedings are conducted in premises equipped with CCTV cameras.

Referring to an earlier decision in Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, where a similar arrangement had been accepted, the Court observed that the request “could have been appropriately considered” by the concerned officials.

Considering the nature of the inquiry and the director's medical condition, the bench said, “we are inclined to accept the limited request.”

The court directed that the statement “be video recorded at the cost of the Petitioners.” It permitted the advocate to accompany him, clarifying that “the advocate shall not interfere, interrupt or disturb recording of the statements” and “may sit at a visible distance but not at audible distance.”

The writ petition was disposed of in these terms, without costs.

For Petitioner: Advocate Abhishek A. Rastogi along with Advocates Pooja Rastogi, Meenal Songire & Aarya More 

Appearance for the Respondents: Mr. Ram Ochani a/w. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondents.