TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether GST intelligence could use physical violence or torture during search and interrogation; whether interrogation could be permitted only in the visible range of counsel and within prescribed hours; and whether the enquiry should be handled by the concerned officer and partly conducted outside Hyderabad.
Issue (i): Whether GST intelligence officials could use physical violence or torture during search and interrogation.
Analysis: The materials on record, including the medical record of injury and the timing of the police call and counter-FIR, prima facie indicated the possibility of assault during the search. The Court held that no law authorises officials acting under the CGST regime to use physical force against persons suspected of tax evasion. It also held that protection against torture is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, and that investigative powers cannot be exercised through violence or coercion.
Conclusion: The respondents were directed not to use any act of violence or torture against the petitioners or their employees.
Issue (ii): Whether interrogation could be permitted only in the visible range of counsel and within prescribed hours.
Analysis: The Court distinguished the general rule against counsel's presence by relying on the special facts of the case and prior directions permitting limited visibility-based access. It held that there is no absolute bar to counsel being present within visible range though outside hearing distance. The Court also treated late-night summons and prolonged questioning as amounting to prima facie deprivation of liberty and held that interrogation should not be conducted at ungodly hours.
Conclusion: Interrogation of the petitioners and their employees was ordered to be confined to weekdays between 10:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the visible range of counsel but beyond hearing range.
Issue (iii): Whether the enquiry should be handled by the concerned officer and partly conducted outside Hyderabad.
Analysis: In view of the allegations against the officer concerned and the circumstances showing the need for fair conduct, the Court directed that he should not participate further. On the request to shift the entire investigation to New Delhi, the Court considered practical hardship, the pandemic situation, and the availability of a Hyderabad unit, and permitted only a limited appearance of the principal petitioners at New Delhi while the rest of the enquiry was to continue at Hyderabad.
Conclusion: The enquiry was ordered to be transferred away from the concerned officer, and only the principal petitioners were required to attend New Delhi once for a limited duration while the remaining enquiry was to proceed at Hyderabad.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed in part with protective directions regulating the manner, time, and place of interrogation and with a change in the officer handling the enquiry, while leaving other contentions open.
Ratio Decidendi: State authorities conducting tax investigation cannot resort to violence or coercion, and in exceptional circumstances the writ court may regulate interrogation by imposing safeguards on time, place, and the presence of counsel to protect personal liberty.
TaxTMI 
