State GST statement recording: counsel may remain visible but not audible, with videography allowed at the petitioner's cost.

Under the State GST framework, the petitioner sought limited protection during recording of his statement: presence of counsel at a visible but not audible distance and videography at his own cost. The authority raised no objection to counsel remaining nearby without hearing the statement and also did not oppose videography if the petitioner bore the expense. On that basis, and in light of the orders relied on, the Court permitted the requested arrangement and directed that a copy be supplied after issuance of the show cause notice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to have counsel present at the recording of his statement at a visible but not audible distance, and to have the statement videographed at his own cost.

Analysis: The petition was pressed only on the prayer seeking permission for the presence of an advocate during recording of the petitioner's statement under the State GST law. The respondent authority expressed no objection to the advocate remaining at a visible but not audible distance and also did not object to videography, provided the cost was borne by the petitioner. In view of the concession and the orders relied upon, the Court granted the requested protection and permitted videography at the petitioner's cost, with a copy to be supplied after issuance of show cause notice.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the limited relief sought, namely presence of counsel at a visible but not audible distance and videography of the statement at the petitioner's cost.

---