Amit Joshi vs. Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax, CGST Delhi (East) & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Joshi, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to safeguard his right to life, liberty, dignity, and fair investigation, and to examine alleged illegal acts by CGST officials. He requested the court to call for investigation records, monitor the investigation until a Show Cause Notice or complaint is filed, and direct bi-monthly progress reports. An interim application was also filed seeking directions for the investigation to be conducted without coercive means, with video recording of statements, and allowing the presence of a lawyer at a visible yet inaudible distance. The petitioner alleged he was illegally detained for three days, beaten, and coerced into making an incriminating statement. The respondents, Commissioner of CEST & ST, CGST (East) & Anr., accepted notice and sought time to file a status report and reply to the application.

Held

The Court dismissed the interim application seeking the presence of a lawyer during questioning. It held that GST officers are not police officers and have the power to summon individuals for evidence or documents. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in *Pool Pandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors.*, the Court categorically held that the presence of a lawyer cannot be allowed during examination or interrogation by Customs Officers, and this principle extends to GST officers. The Court reasoned that the purpose of such inquiries would be frustrated if the whims of individuals are allowed to prevail, and the constitutional provisions should be construed in spirit to prevent tax evasion. The Court also noted that while no investigating officer has the right to use unlawful methods, the respondents' counsel assured that the investigation would be conducted as per law. The issue of monitoring the investigation and bi-monthly reports was not explicitly decided in this order, as the focus was on the interim application regarding lawyer's presence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the presence of his lawyer at a visible yet inaudible distance during examination/interrogation by GST officers, considering the provisions of the GST Act and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the investigation conducted by CGST officials is being carried out in accordance with law, and if not, whether the Court should monitor the investigation and direct bi-monthly progress reports. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that his investigation was not conducted in accordance with law, alleging illegal detention, torture, and coercion to make incriminating statements. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Jugal Kishore Samra* to support his plea for monitoring the investigation and allowing lawyer's presence. The revenue/state's arguments: The respondents argued that the investigation was being conducted as per law and the petitioner was not subjected to torture. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *Pool Pandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors.* and a Delhi High Court judgment in *Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal vs. Directorate General of GST Intelligence* to argue against the presence of a lawyer during questioning.