Shri Viklap Jain vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Others

Held

The Court found the petitioner's apprehension of being summoned outside office hours to be misconceived, as the summons itself only required appearance during office hours. Similarly, the Court found no reason for the apprehension of third-degree methods or harassment. The Court relied on several precedents: Ajit Jain (1998) 2 SCC 752, which states a summoned party must appear and answer questions faithfully but cannot be compelled to answer confusing questions or those due to memory loss; Vijay Sajnani (2017) 345 E.L.T. 323 (SC) and Mahender Kumar Kundia (2015) 15 SCC 419, which permit the presence of an advocate during interrogation, albeit at a distance where they cannot hear but can see the party; and Shamrock Chemie Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 51 S.T.R. 353 (Guj.) and Prakash Kumar Choudhary (1996) 83 E.L.T. 45 (Ker.), which reiterate that third-degree measures should not be used and the presence of an advocate is permissible. The Court held that a person summoned must cooperate and answer questions faithfully, but cannot be forced to answer confusing questions or those they cannot recall. Interrogation must occur during office hours, and the presence of an advocate at a visible but inaudible distance is permissible to safeguard against ill-treatment. The petition was disposed of with the petitioner directed to appear on May 30, 2018, or another date informed by the officer, and to cooperate with the inquiry.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Viklap Jain, who operates a hotel and a Desi wine shop, received a summons dated May 8, 2018, under Section 70 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, from the Superintendent, Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Meerut. The summons directed him to appear in person on May 10, 2018, to provide evidence and produce documents related to an inquiry. The petitioner did not attend, and his wife allegedly requested a month's time, stating he was out of station. The petitioner then filed a writ petition seeking directions to appear only during office hours with his counsel, to not be harassed, and not to be forced to give statements in a manner dictated by the department.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's apprehension of being summoned outside office hours is justified, and if so, what relief can be granted? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner can be compelled to answer questions during interrogation, and what safeguards are in place against harassment or the use of third-degree methods? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he should be allowed to appear only during office hours and with his counsel. He also expressed apprehension of harassment and being forced to give statements against his will. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, it addresses the petitioner's apprehensions by referencing established legal principles regarding summons, interrogation, and the presence of counsel.