Rajiv Chawla & Anr. vs. The Principal Additional Director General, Dggi, Delhi Zonal Unit

Facts

The petitioners, a married couple, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking directions to the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) to conduct investigations in accordance with law. Specifically, they requested that the recording of their statements be videographed, that they not be harassed, and that they not be compelled to deposit any amount during the investigation without a final determination of GST liability. The DGGI had conducted a search at the petitioners' factory and residence on February 3, 2023. Subsequently, the petitioners were taken to the DGGI office, and one petitioner was detained and arrested, followed by the arrest of the other petitioner. Both were later granted bail and released. The petitioners' prayers in the writ petition were limited to the videography of statement recording, prevention of harassment, and no insistence on payment during investigation.

Held

The Court allowed the prayers made in the petition. Regarding the issue of videography, the respondent had no objection and agreed to it, which the Court found would obviate any allegations of harassment. Consequently, the Court directed that the statement recording process of the petitioners be videographed. On the issue of harassment, the respondent assured the Court that steps would be taken only in accordance with law, and the videography itself was seen as a measure to prevent harassment. Concerning the deposit of amounts during the investigation, the respondent stated there would be no insistence on such deposits. The Court further clarified that no amount would be deposited by the petitioners or accepted by the respondent without leave of the Court. The Court also noted the petitioner's request for statements to be recorded during business hours, and the respondent assured that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would be followed. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondent to videograph the statement recording process of the petitioners during the investigation? 2. Whether the respondent should be directed not to harass the petitioners during the investigation? 3. Whether the respondent should be restrained from insisting upon the petitioners or their partnership firm to deposit any amount during the investigation without a final determination of GST liability? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners sought directions for fair investigation, including videography of statement recording to prevent harassment and ensure transparency. They also sought to prevent the respondent from demanding payment of any amount during the investigation phase, arguing that such demands should only follow a final determination of liability. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through its counsel, had no objection to the petitioners' request for videography of statement recording and agreed to conduct the investigation in accordance with law. The respondent also stated that videography would obviate allegations of harassment and confirmed that there would be no insistence on the petitioners depositing any amount during the investigation.