GST update No 161 on requirement to install CCTV camera during summon proceedings

The Apex Court in its recent judgment ruled out that CCTV cameras should be compulsorily installed at the police stations, NIA, CBI etc. to keep a check on legality of actions. However, in the present scenario the question in front of us is whether it is mandatory to install CCTV camera during summon proceedings? With the passage of time, complexities in GST increased tremendously wherein tax officers issue summons and adopt an aggressive approach to collect taxes. Recently, similar issue was raised before the hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of SAURABH MITTAL V/S UNION OF INDIA wherein one of the grounds for grant of bail was no CCTV cameras installed during the summon proceedings. The analysis of the judgment is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. In the present case, information was received by Senior Intelligent Officer of GST that a group of unscrupulous persons along with Custom House Agents (CHAs) are involved in evasion of GST by making exports from nonexistent firms. Accordingly, search was conducted at the office of the petitioner wherein documents related to petitioner’s firms were seized. It was alleged that the mastermind, Tinku Yadav who was involved in creation of numerous fake firms and claiming fake ITC, worked on the directions of Satish Jain and Govind Sharma. Subsequently, summons were issued to both father and son both and Yogesh Mittal i.e. father was arrested while the son was allowed to go back. The Counsel of the petitioner argued that the jurisdiction of the petitioner lies in Delhi and not in Meerut and therefore, it was alarming as to why Meerut was chosen to undertake inquiry. It was further submitted that the since there was no corroborative evidence against the petitioner, statements submitted by third party cannot be relied upon. Reliance was placed Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of HARICHARAN KURMI VS. STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 1964 SC 1184. Further, it was contended that the petitioner is suffering from end stage of Liver disease and constantly under treatment. Further, his brother is suffering from mental retardation and mother is senior citizen who are dependent on the petitioner. It was argued that neither the father nor the petitioner himself has any connection with the transactions then also, they are facing gross harassment. Moreover, the offence under CGST Act, 2017 are compoundable and maximum punishment u/s 132 of the Act is only of 5 years along with fine. It was contended that petitioner cannot be held liable since he does not hold any managerial position in the firm. Reliance was placed on decision of Apex Court in the case of PARAMVIR SINGH SAINI VS. BALJIT SINGH & ORS. (SLP (CRL.) NO. 3543 OF 2020, ORDER DATED 02.12.2020), VIJAY SAJNANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [(2012) SCC ONLINE SC 1094] AND BIRENDRA KUMAR PANDEY VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (W.P.(CRL.) 28 OF 2012, ORDER DATED 16.04.2012) wherein it was held that presence of advocate is mandatory at a visible stage. References were made to various judicial pronouncements such as: • Y. ABRAHAM AJIT & ORS. VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENNAI & ANR. [(2004) 8 SCC 100] • RAMESH & ORS. VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2005) 3 SCC 2005] • MANISH RATAN & ORS. VS. STATE OF M.P & ANR. [(2007) 1 SCC 262] • AMARENDU JYOTI VS. STATE OF CHHATISGARH [(2014) 12 SCC 362] • DGGI VS. DAMAN THAKRAL [2021 (3) TMI 144] The departmental representative argued that investigation is at very initial stage wherein fraud amounting to Rs. 350 Crores is involved. It was submitted that the firms are not solely based in Delhi but in Ghaziabad and Noida as well and therefore, not choosing Meerut as a jurisdiction is baseless. Further, statements of bank official were relied on who revealed that accounts of around 200 firms were opened by the petitioner without physical verification of the same. Further, it was argued that the petitioner failed to appear before the authority when 2 summons were already issued on an earlier occasion. Moreover, it was argued that no protection or relief should be given to petitioner since fake ITC of Rs. 350 crores was involved. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements some of which are: • NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [(2021) SCC ONLINE SC 315] • UNION OF INDIA VS. PADAM NARAIN AGGARWAL [(2008) 13 SCC 305] • SANDEEP JAIN VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DRI (DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE) & ANR. (W.P.(C) 9561/2019) The Court stated that no interference can be done as regards to the investigation at the said stage and therefore, authorities cannot be prevented to proceed further. Further, it was held that arrest u/s 69(1) of CGST Act, 2017, do not fall within the ambit of “Criminal Proceedings” since, criminal proceedings commence only after launch of prosecution. Moreover, the contention of petitioner regarding installation of CCTV cameras and presence of advocate is not tenable since the petitioner has failed to raise any reasonable basis to apprehend that there is coercion by the department. It was further stated that the case on which petitioner placed reliance on were not applicable in the current scenario. Therefore, the petitioner was not granted any relief looking into the amount of fraud involved in the given case. The above judgment is a disheartening for the business community and depicts the strict attitude of the Courts to grant any relief in fake invoice cases. However, possibility of harassment during the course of summon/investigation proceedings cannot be ruled out. Therefore, installation of CCTV cameras for recording the proceedings is a prudent idea that should be implemented. However, non installation of CCTV cameras cannot be the sole ground to take any benefit as in cases of fraud, the other factors such as revenue involvement also holds significance. Recognizing the developing needs of technology driven society, it is high time that information technology should be implemented along with law so that violation of human rights is reduced to a greater extent.

Comments

GST update No 161 on requirement to install CCTV camera during summon proceedings

Post a Comment

Query