GST summon proceedings can be videographed, rules Bombay High Court in key safeguards order
In a notable order reinforcing procedural safeguards during tax investigations, the Bombay High Court has allowed videography of summons proceedings conducted by GST authorities, while permitting the presence of legal counsel at a visible but non-audible distance during questioning.
A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. and another under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court recorded that the petitioner had confined its relief to two limited safeguards: permission for legal counsel to remain present at a visible but not audible distance during questioning, and videographic recording of the proceedings at the petitioner’s cost.
The summons in question were issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in relation to an inquiry into input tax credit claimed by the company.
Arguments advanced for the petitioner
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Abhishek A. Rastogi argued that videography would function as a neutral evidentiary mechanism protecting both the taxpayer and the department. He relied on an earlier coordinate bench ruling in Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, where similar safeguards had been accepted with the consent of the revenue, including video recording of statements and the presence of counsel at a non-audible distance.
Rastogi assured the court that the petitioner would cooperate fully with the inquiry and emphasised that there was no intention to evade tax. The petitioner also highlighted that the transactions under scrutiny were supported by tax invoices, reflected in GSTR-2B returns, and payments were made through banking channels.
Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner must cooperate with the inquiry and furnish all documents as required. The department contended that the premises where the proceedings were conducted were already equipped with CCTV cameras, and therefore additional safeguards such as videography were unnecessary.
Court’s reasoning and directives
After examining the record, the bench observed that the request made by the petitioner could have been appropriately considered by the concerned officials. The court noted that the inquiry arose from summons issued in relation to input tax credit claimed on purchases from suppliers whose GST registrations were later cancelled.
The bench also recorded that Petitioner No. 2 was undergoing treatment for cancer and had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation, which weighed in favour of granting the limited relief sought.
