Jharkhand High Court: In a case wherein the petitioner was interrogated till past mid-night and was permitted to go home only after his statement was recorded to the satisfaction of the GST Officer, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, ACJ and Navneet Kumar, J., opined that the proper officer under the (‘CGST Act’) should not be requiring/forcing/coercing a person so summoned to give statement after the office hours. The Court also directed that the GST officers should follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the Commissioner (GST-Investigation) and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) while summoning a person by exercising the powers under section of the .
The Court stated that the Constitution recognized basic human rights of every individual. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., it was held that periodic night visits by the police at the home of the accused should be an invasion to his right to privacy under Article of the . Further, in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, , it was held that the right to privacy was implicit in the guarantee under Article of the . The Court stated that to speak or not to speak had always been a dilemma for a person called for giving his statement before the Customs Officer, Central Sales Tax Officer, Police Officer etc, as the implications were serious. Further, Article of the provided that no person accused of any offence should be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Under the , a person called for giving evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry was under a duty to speak truth. Section of the provided that every inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) should be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections and of the . Therefore, the consequence was that any person whose attendance was considered necessary by the proper officer, if makes any untrue statements, to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry under the CGST Act, should be liable to be prosecuted as indicated under sub-section (2).
The Court opined that the proper officer under the CGST Act should not be requiring/forcing/coercing a person so summoned to give statement after the office hours. Further, the Court noted the petitioner’s contention that in the GST Intelligence and Investigation Manual, 2023 (‘the Manual’), it was specifically provided that the statements should be recorded during office hours, but taking a clue from the expression “exception” in clause (iv) of the Manual, the Commissioner (GST-Investigation) had taken a stand that in cases where the persons might be arrested, there were chances of absconding during inquiry, therefore such cases might also be treated as exceptional cases.
Thus, the Court referred to the guidelines and instructions issued by the GST-Investigation and directed that the GST officers should follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the Commissioner (GST-Investigation) and the CBIC while summoning a person by exercising the powers under section of the .
[Shiv Kumar Deora v. Union of India, W.P.(T) No. 354 of 2024, Order dated 13-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Salona Mittal, Advocate;
For the Respondents: P.A.S. Pati, Sr. SC (DGGI).
Buy Constitution of India
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .