Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel vs. State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Prakash Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, proprietor of Devika Bullion, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petition challenged an action by the Superintendent of CGST & CX, Anti-Evasion, Mumbai South, and the Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX, Mumbai South. The petitioner sought specific relief regarding his interrogation by the GST authorities. He initially prayed for permission for videography of the interrogation at his own cost and for his statement to be recorded in the presence of his Advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The GST authorities stated they had no objection to the Advocate's presence at a visible but not audible distance.

Held

The Court allowed the petition. The primary issue was whether the petitioner's Advocate could be present during the interrogation. The petitioner, while initially seeking videography, ultimately pressed only for the presence of his Advocate at a visible but not audible distance. The GST authorities (respondents nos. 2 and 3) stated they had no objection to this arrangement. Considering the submissions and the precedents cited by the petitioner, the Court found no impediment to allowing the Advocate's presence under the specified conditions. The Court reasoned that this would ensure transparency and provide support to the petitioner during the interrogation process, without hindering the investigation. The ratio decidendi is that in such circumstances, the presence of legal counsel at a visible but not audible distance during interrogation by GST authorities is permissible and can be granted by the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his Advocate present at a visible but not audible distance during his interrogation by the GST authorities, in light of the provisions of the CGST Act and relevant precedents? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through his counsel, pressed for the relief that his statement be recorded in the presence of his Advocate, at a visible but not audible distance. He relied on decisions from this Court in Kamlesh Kumar Mishra s/o. Brijabhooshan Mishra Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another, Mayur Chavda s/o. Deepakbhai Chavda Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Another, and Manishbhai Narshibhai Talaviya and Another Vs. Union of India and Others. Revenue/State's contention: The Superintendent of CGST & CX and Principal Commissioner of CGST & CX had no objection to the presence of the petitioner’s Advocate at the time of recording the petitioner’s statement, provided the Advocate was at a visible distance, but not at an audible distance.