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

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking permission for video conferencing to tender a statement under the CGST Act. The Petitioner's health concerns and COVID-19 risks were not deemed sufficient reasons, as medical documents did not show severe impediments to travel. The Court noted the Petitioner's past non-cooperation in the investigation and emphasized the importance of physical presence for integrity. It concluded that remote recording could compromise the investigation and ordered the Petitioner's physical presence, ensuring safety measures during the process.

---

---

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.

---