GST UPDATE ON DELHI HC REFUSING TO CONVENE SUMMON PROCEEDINGS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING 164/202021

The use of technology has increased manifold during the prevalent pandemic times. The style of working in courts have also tremendously changed wherein personal hearings through video conferencing has become the need of the hour. However, even during such difficult times, when COVID is set to spread at its peak, recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court refused to tender statement and adduce evidence through video conferencing in the case of P. V. RAO VERSUS SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DGGSTI & OTHERS [W.P. NO. 8975/2020 DT 18.11.2020]. The reasoning adopted by the Hon’ble High Court is the subject matter of discussion of our present update.
The petitioner is presently employed by Think and Learn Private Limited (Company) in the capacity of Chief Financial Officer (CFO). This company is engaged in the business of providing online courses, classes etc. through its website and mobile applications by the brand name “BYJU’s”. DGGSTI carried out an investigation under section 67 of the CGST Act in relation to the company, for evasion of GST on books/printed material being supplied by the company by mis-declaring such supplies under the exempted category. In this regard, from 27th to 29^th October, 2020, DGGSTI along with a team of officers visited the premises of the Company at Bengaluru for carrying out an inspection under Section 67 of the CGST Act in order to ascertain the admissibility of the exemption being availed by the company. The Petitioner asserts that his statement was recorded on 28th October, 2020 from 2:00 pm to 6:00 pm. However, owing to his ill health and age-related morbidities, he fell severely unwell during the recording of his statement and accordingly consulted a doctor who prescribed medication and advised rest for a period of three days.Subsequently, petitioner was summoned to tender his statement and present evidence on 5^th November, 2020 at New Delhi. The petitioner represented that, owing to his ill health and rising number of COVID cases across the country, it was not safe for him to travel to New Delhi for recording his statement and requested that he be permitted to appear through video conference. The request of the petitioner was declined and summon was again issued to appear on 10.11.2020 and so the petitioner has filed writ petition for seeking a writ of Mandamus to record his statement through video conference. The revenue authorities contended that the request of petitioner is not liable to be accepted as he has not cooperated in the investigation proceedings.

The counsel for the petitioner produced medical reports to support their contention that it is not safe for the petitioner to travel during pandemic and expose himself to such a big risk. Reliance was also placed on decision given by Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Ilangovan G. Versus Union of India & Others in similar situation. Reference was also made to Supreme Court decision given in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai [2003 (4) SSC 601] wherein recording of evidence of a witness by way of video conferencing was permitted. Reliance was also made on the decision of this Court in the case of National Building Construction Company Limited Vs Union of India [2019 (20) G.S.T.L. 515 (Del).] to submit that personal presence of senior officer may not be necessary unless there are compelling reasons.

The counsel for the department objected for allowing the request of the petitioner on the grounds that petitioner can have support system helping him and clarifications/answers can be motivated and influenced which may adversely affect the ongoing investigation.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the certificates/blood test reports produced only indicate that the petitioner is undergoing treatment of hypertension and diabetes and has high risk factor for heart disease and do not indicate any serious health issues that could prevent the petitioner from travelling from Bangalore to New Delhi. Accordingly, the High Court directed the petitioner to be medically examined by government hospital as to his fitness to travel and make statement but the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed that it is not the case of the petitioner that he is unable to undertake travel from Bangalore to New Delhi. It was submitted that although the petitioner can travel but considering the pandemic situation, he is exposed to risk of contacting the COVID-19. Thereafter, the High Court held that having regard to the past non-cooperative conduct of the petitioner and mere apprehension or fear of petitioner of contacting COVID-19 infection cannot be reason for the Court to interfere in investigation proceedings. Hence, the court rejected the plea of the petitioner and directed to proceed with investigation proceedings with all safety measures and protocols of social distancing.

The above decision is a setback for the assessees as it indicates non-sympathetic view of the High Court as regards interrogation and summon proceedings are concerned. The High Court refused to accept the request of the petitioner on the grounds that recording of statement in court during trial proceedings is different and so the benefit of decisions relied upon cannot be extended in the present situation. We all know the atmosphere of pressure created during the course of summon proceedings and probably this is the real reason for not allowing summon proceedings to be convened through video conferencing, even in this pandemic situation.

This is solely for educational purpose.
You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21 and u may also follow us on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16

Comments

GST UPDATE ON DELHI HC REFUSING TO CONVENE SUMMON PROCEEDINGS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING 164/202021

Post a Comment

Query