P.V. Rao vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner's health condition did not impede his ability to travel from Bengaluru to Delhi. While acknowledging the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of technology by courts, the Court found that the present situation, involving an ongoing investigation by an agency, was distinguishable. The Court noted the Petitioner's past conduct of avoiding recording his statement on various pretexts. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's mere apprehension or fear of contracting COVID-19 was not a sufficient ground to grant the relief sought, especially considering the potential impact on the investigation. The Court dismissed the petition, with the Respondents assuring that all safety measures would be in place during the recording of the Petitioner's statement, and it would be concluded on a day-to-day basis to minimize travel.

Facts

The Petitioner, P.V. Rao, Chief Financial Officer of Think and Learn Private Limited (BYJU'S), approached the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus. He requested to tender his statement and adduce evidence through video conferencing in relation to a summons issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGSTI) was investigating the company for alleged GST evasion. The Petitioner claimed ill health and age-related morbidities, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, made travel from Bengaluru to New Delhi unsafe. The DGGSTI declined his request, citing the need for in-person clarification on documents obtained during inspection and the Petitioner's alleged non-cooperation during previous inspection visits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner, citing ill health and the COVID-19 pandemic, is entitled to tender his statement and adduce evidence through video conferencing under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in lieu of appearing in person before the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGSTI)? Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that due to his high-risk age group, pre-existing health conditions (hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol), and the rising COVID-19 cases in Delhi, travelling from Bengaluru would expose him to grave risk. He contended that video conferencing is a widely accepted practice by judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, including the High Court, to mitigate COVID-19 spread. He relied on precedents like "State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai" and "Ilangovan G. v. Union of India & Ors.". Respondents' arguments: The Respondents argued that the Petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation and that his request for video conferencing was not justified. They highlighted the Petitioner's previous evasive conduct during the inspection and stated that in-person clarification of documents was necessary for the ongoing investigation. They contended that the Petitioner's health issues did not impede his ability to travel, and the fear of contracting COVID-19 was a mere apprehension, not a sufficient ground to interdict the investigation.