2020 (11) TMI 716 - HC - GST

Court denies video conferencing request under CGST Act due to health concerns, emphasizes physical presence for integrity.

P.V. Rao Versus Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors.

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking permission for video conferencing to tender a statement under the CGST Act. The Petitioner's health concerns ... Validity of Summon Order - seeking direction to Petitioner to tender his statement and adduce evidence through video conferencing, in relation to a summon issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - whether the current COVID-19 pandemic situation can ipso facto be cited as a ground to insist that the tendering of statement be done through video conferencing? - HELD THAT:- Concededly, the investigation is ongoing and the Respondent wants to unearth the role of the Petitioner in the alleged tax evasion by the Company. The previous conduct of the Petitioner, at the stage of inspection when the officers of the Respondents were visiting Bengaluru, demonstrates that the Petitioner consistently avoided recording his statement on one pretext or the other. Thus, having regard to the past noncooperative conduct of the Petitioner, and the mere apprehension or fear of the Petitioner of contracting the COVID-19 infection, we would not like to interdict or interfere in the investigation process. No doubt, due to the recent outbreak of COVID-19, the Courts of this country including the Supreme Court as well as this Court have adopted measures to reduce physical presence of the lawyers and litigants, and several social-distancing guidelines have been issued by several health authorities as well as the Government of India. In this process, the use of the modern technologies has been put to use for dispensation of justice by the Courts. However, that is not the situation before us. We are concerned with the investigation being carried out by an investigating agency. The evidence being recorded at this stage would impact the entire investigation of tax evasion. The questioning during investigation has to be on the basis of evaluation and examination of documents. During the process of interrogation, the investigating agency may come across certain relevant facts and discoveries which are germane and crucial for concluding the investigation. Judicial interference at this threshold stage, in such matters relating to investigation, has to be exercised with circumspection. The concept of balance of convenience, therefore, cannot be tilted in favour of the Petitioner to be allowed to appear through video conferencing, merely because travelling from Bengaluru to New Delhi would be a risk factor for the Petitioner of contracting COVID-19. This mere apprehension of contracting COVID-19 does not persuade us to grant the relief sought for by the present Petitioner. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Request for tendering statement and adducing evidence through video conferencing.2. Health concerns and risk of COVID-19 infection.3. Allegations of non-cooperation in the investigation.4. Judicial precedents and guidelines on video conferencing.5. Balance of convenience and judicial interference in ongoing investigations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Request for tendering statement and adducing evidence through video conferencing:The Petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent, the Senior Intelligence Officer, Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGSTI), to allow him to tender his statement and adduce evidence through video conferencing, in response to a summon issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The Petitioner cited health concerns and the COVID-19 pandemic as reasons for his request.2. Health concerns and risk of COVID-19 infection:The Petitioner, employed as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of a company, claimed that due to his ill health and age-related co-morbidities, it was unsafe for him to travel to New Delhi. He provided medical documents indicating treatment for hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol levels, and argued that traveling during the pandemic posed a significant health risk. The Court noted that the medical documents did not indicate any serious ailment preventing travel and suggested a medical examination by a government hospital. However, the Petitioner’s counsel clarified that the Petitioner could travel but preferred video conferencing due to COVID-19 risks.3. Allegations of non-cooperation in the investigation:The Respondent contended that the Petitioner had been uncooperative during the investigation, delaying the recording of his statement on multiple occasions. The status report detailed the sequence of events, highlighting the Petitioner’s repeated requests for extensions and citing health issues to avoid tendering his statement. The Court observed that the Petitioner’s past conduct demonstrated non-cooperation, which influenced its decision.4. Judicial precedents and guidelines on video conferencing:The Petitioner’s counsel referred to several judicial precedents and guidelines supporting the use of video conferencing, including the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai and an order by the High Court for the State of Telangana. The Court distinguished these cases, noting that the current situation involved an ongoing investigation by an investigating agency, not a trial before a court of law. The Court emphasized that judicial interference in such investigations should be exercised with circumspection.5. Balance of convenience and judicial interference in ongoing investigations:The Court considered the balance of convenience, noting that the investigation was at an initial stage and required detailed clarifications from the Petitioner. The Court concluded that the mere apprehension of contracting COVID-19 did not justify granting the Petitioner’s request for video conferencing. The Court emphasized that the investigation’s integrity could be compromised if the statement was recorded remotely, as it could be influenced or motivated.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Petitioner’s health condition did not impede his ability to travel and that the investigation required his physical presence. The Court took on record the Respondent’s assurance that all safety measures and protocols would be in place during the recording of the Petitioner’s statement, which would be concluded on a day-to-day basis to minimize travel.