M/S A.Y. Trading Company vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

Held

The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to have their advocate present during interrogation. This decision was based on the consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances, directing that an advocate should be allowed to be present during the interrogation of a petitioner. The Court clarified that the advocate should be seated at a distance beyond hearing range but within visible distance. Furthermore, the advocate must be prepared to be present whenever the petitioners are called upon to attend such interrogation. The Court did not explicitly address the prayer regarding conducting interrogation during reasonable office hours, focusing primarily on the presence of the advocate. The ratio decidendi is that in investigative proceedings, the right to have legal representation present, albeit at a non-obstructive distance, is recognized to ensure fairness and prevent potential coercion.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. A. Y. Trading Company & Anr., engaged in the trading of Arecanut, received a summons from the Director General of GST Intelligence under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for an investigation. While willing to cooperate, the petitioners apprehended coercive attempts and the extraction of confessions. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allow their advocate to be present during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance, and to conduct the interrogation during reasonable office hours. The respondent did not dispute the cited precedents but opposed the prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their advocate present during interrogation by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, and if so, under what conditions? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and established judicial precedents). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that their advocate should be allowed to be present during interrogation at a visible but not audible distance. They relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India (2017) and an order in Nilesh Parekh Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (Cr.) No.300/2019 dated 17/04/2020). They also cited a Bombay High Court order in Vikas Singh and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another (Writ Petition No.4205 of 2016) which allowed similar relief, directing the advocate to be present at a visible but not audible distance. Respondent's Arguments: The learned counsel for the Directorate of GST Intelligence did not dispute the aforesaid orders but opposed the prayer made by the petitioners.