Case Law Details
Shri Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel Proprietor of Devika Bullion Vs State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court addressed a crucial aspect of GST proceedings by allowing the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation. This judgment came in response to a case where the petitioner sought the presence of their advocate based on a previous Supreme Court order.
The petitioner approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court after receiving summons from the office of Central Goods and Service Tax. Their request for the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance was inspired by a ruling in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey Vs. UOI by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The division bench of the Bombay High Court granted this prayer, ensuring that the petitioner’s statement would be recorded in the presence of their advocate.
During the proceedings, the petitioner pressed for the permission to have the interrogation videotaped, but later withdrew this request. The court considered the petitioner’s prayer, along with relevant precedents, including Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Mayur Chavda Vs. The State of Maharashtra, and Manishbhai Narshibhai Talaviya Vs. Union of India. The Special Public Prosecutor representing respondent nos. 2 and 3 had no objection to the presence of the petitioner’s advocate as long as it was at a visible but not audible distance.
Taking into account the arguments and exhibits presented, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court granted the petition and permitted the petitioner’s advocate to remain present during the recording of the petitioner’s statement at a visible but not audible distance. This decision sets a precedent and addresses the petitioner’s concern regarding fair representation during the interrogation process in GST proceedings.
Conclusion: The recent judgment by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court regarding the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance in GST proceedings highlights the court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and due process. This ruling aligns with previous Supreme Court decisions and provides assurance to taxpayers seeking legal representation during their interactions with tax authorities. As this judgment sets a precedent, it will likely influence similar cases in the future and contribute to the continued evolution of GST procedures.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of the Respondent-State. Mr. Jitendra Mishra waives notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is pressing only for prayer clause (d), only to the extent that the petitioner’s statement be recorded in the presence of his Advocate i.e. at a visible but not audible distance, during his interrogation. He further on instructions states that though the petitioner has prayed for permission for videography of the interrogation, at the petitioners cost, the petitioner is not pressing for the said relief.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions passed by this court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Mishra s/o. Brijabhooshan Mishra Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another1, Mayur Chavda s/o. Deepakbhai Chavda Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another 2 and Manishbhai Narshibhai Talaviya and Another Vs. Union of India and Others 3
5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 state that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have no objection to the presence of the petitioner’s Advocate, at the time of recording of the petitioner’s statement, provided that he is at a visible distance, but not at an audible distance.
6. Considering the aforesaid and having regard to the orders annexed to the petition from ‘Exhibit-G’ to ‘Exhibit-I’, we allow the petition and, as such, permit the petitioner’s Advocate to remain present at a visible, but not at an audible distance at the the time of recording of the petitioner’s statement.
7. The Petition is accordingly allowed and, as such, disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
8. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
Notes:
1 Criminal Writ Petition No. 1313 of 2023
2 Criminal Writ Petition (St) No. 6697 of 2023
3 Criminal Writ Petition No. 649 of 2023
