GST summons questioning: no automatic right to counsel during revenue interrogation, as lawyer presence may impede inquiry.

Under GST summons powers, officers may examine any person for evidence or documents, and they are not treated as police officers for that purpose. The note distinguishes the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination from any claimed right to have counsel present during questioning. Relying on later binding authority, it states that lawyer participation during revenue interrogation is not a matter of right because it would frustrate the inquiry. The earlier order permitting counsel's presence was therefore modified and the request rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person summoned for examination by GST officers is entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning, and whether the earlier order granting such presence required modification.

Analysis: The order proceeds on the settled position that officers exercising powers under the GST enactment are not police officers and that the statutory power to summon any person for evidence or production of documents authorises questioning in aid of inquiry. The reasoning draws a distinction between constitutional protections against compelled self-incrimination and a claimed right to the presence of counsel during interrogation. Relying on the later binding authority that disapproved lawyer participation during questioning by revenue officers, the court held that allowing counsel to remain present would frustrate the inquiry and is not supported by the governing legal position.

Conclusion: The prayer for presence of a lawyer during questioning was rejected, and the earlier order was modified accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: A person summoned for inquiry under the GST law is not entitled, as a matter of right, to the presence of a lawyer during questioning by revenue exercising statutory summons powers.

---