Petitioner Denied Request for Limited Counsel Hours, Must Comply with Summons for GST Act Enquiry

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's request to appear with counsel only during office hours for an enquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. Emphasizing the obligation to cooperate with the summons, the Court highlighted the right to have counsel present during interrogation within visible but not hearing range. The petitioner was directed to comply with the summons and participate in the enquiry, with the expectation that legal principles would be followed during the interrogation process.

---

---

Issues:
Summon issued under Section 70 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 for appearance in an enquiry; Petitioner's request for appearing with counsel only during office hours; Apprehension of harassment and forced statement by the department; Legal principles governing interrogation during enquiry; Presence of advocate during interrogation; Compliance with summons and cooperation with the enquiry.

Analysis:
The petitioner, running a hotel and Desi wine shop, received a summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 to appear before the Chief Commissioner's office for an enquiry. The petitioner sought permission to appear with counsel only during office hours and raised concerns about potential harassment and forced statements by the department. The High Court noted that the summons required the petitioner to appear during office hours, dismissing the apprehension of being summoned after hours or forced to give evidence in a particular manner.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted that a summoned party must make themselves available for interrogation, answer questions faithfully, and cannot be compelled to respond to confusing queries due to memory loss. The Court cited cases such as Ajit Jain Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India, emphasizing the right of a party to have their counsel present during interrogation within visible but not hearing range.

Further, the Court underscored that the presence of the party's advocate at a distance where they can see but not hear the interrogation does not interfere with the investigation process. Citing cases like Mahender Kumar Kundia Vs. Union of India and Shamrock Chemie Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, the Court reiterated that interrogation should be conducted during office hours without the use of third-degree measures or ill-treatment.

In conclusion, the Court clarified that a person cannot refuse interrogation during an enquiry upon receiving a summons. Emphasizing the need for compliance with legal principles, the Court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the enquiry and present himself before the Chief Commissioner's office on a specified date. The petition was disposed of with the expectation that the authorities would adhere to the established legal principles during the interrogation process as per the summons issued to the petitioner.

---