TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was further submitted that petitioner came to know that the Respondent agency, conducted a search on 11.09.2019 at the Petitioner's property bearing no. J5/101E, Rajokri Garden, New Delhi which was rented out to one Mr. Jaiswar@ Mr. Jaiswal, who was residing at the said premises with his wife. Mr Jaiswar@Mr. Jaiswal, was manhandled and was in state of trauma after having been illegally detained by the officers of the Respondent agency. 4. It was next submitted that an employee of the petitioner, namely one Mr. Garg was also, illegally detained by the officers of the Respondent and was manhandled, harassed mentally, physically and verbally by the officers of the Respondent agency. 5. It was next submitted that the petitioner had also come to know that search team of the respondent agency was also enquiring about him with regard to his Company namely, M/s Dominion Expoventures Pvt. Ltd. during their search on 11.09.2019. It was submitted that the petitioner was innocent and had nothing to do with the aforementioned case/investigation. He was willing to join the investigation if summons were sent to him. 6. It was further submitted that the petitioner apprehended that the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 10. It was next submitted in the petition that though the petitioner had not received any summons to appear from any of the respondent agency, however, he agrees to appear before the respondent provided, respondents do not cause any physical, mental or verbal harassment to the petitioner during pendency of the investigation. It was further submitted that the respondent was already in possession of all the documents relating to the petitioner's company and therefore, the respondent need not take any coercive steps in the present investigation. All the offences under the Act are compoundable under section 138 of the CGST Act and hence arrest was wholly unnecessary. 11. It was next submitted that petitioner was ready to submit himself to any condition/conditions, which the Court might impose to allay the fear of the respondent, of any kind of likely absence from the trial or investigation. 12. It was lastly submitted that the petitioner fears for his life, health and safety and apprehends, that the respondent may cause physical, mental and/or verbal harassment to the petitioner during pendency of the investigation and prayed that protection in the event of receiving summons from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llow the presence of a lawyer during questioning under Customs Act and the relevant para runs as under; 11. We do not find any force in the arguments of Mr. Salve and Mr. Lalit that if a person is called away from his own house and questioned in the atmosphere of the customs office without the assistance of his lawyer or his friends his constitutional right under Article 21 is violated. The argument proceeds thus : if the person who is used to certain comforts and convenience is asked to come by himself to the Department for answering question it amounts to mental torture. We are unable to agree. It is true that large majority of persons connected with illegal trade and evasion of taxes and duties are in a position to afford luxuries on lavish scale of which an honest ordinary citizen of this country cannot dream of and they are surrounded by persons similarly involved either directly or indirectly in such pursuits. But that cannot be a ground for holding that he has a constitutional right to claim similar luxuries and company of his choice. Mr. Salve was fair enough not to pursue his arguement with reference to the comfort part, but continued to maintain that the appellant is en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erence between investigation /interrogation by the Customs officers or Police Officers so far as presence of Lawyer during the said period is concerned. 20. I have considered the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pool Pandi's judgment (Supra), has categorically stated that presence of a lawyer cannot be allowed during examination/ interrogation by a Customs Officer. It was held that relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit in which they were made and benefit thereunder should not be extended to exploiters engaged in Tax Evasion at the cost of public exchequer. The submission of the petitioner regarding presence of lawyer in the interrogation was, therefore, declined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. High Court of Delhi in a case titled "Sudhir Gulati vs. UOI, 1998 (100) E.LT. 344 (Del) = 1998 (2) TMI 126 - DELHI HIGH COURT" has also categorically held that assistance of lawyer cannot be allowed while examination of a person in the Customs Office. It was held as under; 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the petitioner is accused of an offence in respect of the FIR noticed hereinbefore within ....