Corporate Tax Investigations: Mandatory Video Recording, Advocate Presence, and Senior Management Participation Under CGST Rules

HC order addressed multiple procedural aspects of tax investigation under CGST Act. Key directives included mandatory video recording of statements, advocate presence with restricted participation, panchanama copy provision within two weeks, and mandatory appearance of senior management during investigation. The Court emphasized cooperation from corporate leadership while ensuring procedural fairness. Petition was disposed without cost, leaving substantive matters for further administrative resolution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Video recording of statements of Directors/Employees of Petitioner.
2. Accompaniment of an advocate during statement recording.
3. Provision of panchanama copies to Petitioner.
4. Summoning of Chairman and Managing Director.
5. Cooperation of employees/directors with authorities.
6. Refund application by Petitioner.

Analysis:

1. The High Court passed a consent order regarding the recording of statements of Directors/Employees of the Petitioner. It was decided that all statements recorded pursuant to the summons shall be video recorded at the cost of the Petitioner.

2. An advocate was allowed to accompany the summoned person during statement recording under the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act. However, the advocate was instructed not to interfere, interrupt, or disturb the recording process. The advocate could sit at a visible distance but not at an audible distance.

3. The Court ordered that copies of panchanama related to inspection proceedings under the CGST Act be provided to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order.

4. The issue of summoning the Chairman and Managing Director was raised by the Petitioner's counsel, requesting only the Chief Finance Officer (CFO) to be summoned. The Court, after considering objections and verifying the petition signed by the Managing Director, ruled that the Chairman and Managing Director shall not be exempted from appearing and cooperating with the authorities.

5. Emphasizing on cooperation, the Court directed that all summoned individuals, including the Managing Director, must attend as required without fail, and assured that if the authorities deemed the presence of the CFO or anyone necessary, appropriate summons would be issued.

6. Regarding the refund application by the Petitioner, it was mentioned that the Petitioner could apply for a refund, and the authorities would consider the application in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the Court clarified that it had not expressed any views on the merits of the matter.

---