Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, P.V. Rao, serving as Chief Financial Officer
of Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (BYJU’S), was summoned under Section 70 of the
CGST Act in connection with an ongoing GST evasion investigation relating to
alleged misclassification of taxable supplies as exempt goods.
During inspection proceedings conducted between 27–29
October 2020, his statement was partly recorded. However, citing ill health,
including hypertension and related conditions, he sought deferment of further
statement recording.
Subsequently, he was summoned to appear in Delhi. Due to
health concerns and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Petitioner
requested permission to tender his statement through video conferencing instead
of physical appearance.
The authorities rejected this request, leading the Petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of mandamus.
Issues Involved
- Whether
a person summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act can insist on recording
of statement through video conferencing.
- Whether
health concerns and COVID-19 risk justify exemption from physical
appearance before investigating authorities.
- Whether courts can interfere in investigation procedures at the stage of evidence recording.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The
Petitioner belonged to a vulnerable age group with co-morbidities such as
hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol, posing a significant
COVID-19 risk.
- Travel
from Bengaluru to Delhi would expose him to serious health risks.
- Video
conferencing is widely accepted by courts and quasi-judicial bodies during
the pandemic.
- Reliance
was placed on:
- Judicial
precedents permitting recording of evidence via video conferencing
- Administrative
circulars discouraging casual summoning of senior management officials
- It was argued that physical presence was not indispensable and virtual appearance would suffice.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The
Petitioner was non-cooperative and had deliberately avoided recording his
statement during inspection proceedings.
- Investigation
was at a crucial stage involving sensitive and incriminating documents
requiring detailed clarification.
- Physical
presence was necessary to ensure effective interrogation and prevent
external influence during testimony.
- Video conferencing could compromise the integrity of the investigation.
Court’s Findings / Order
- The
Court observed that the Petitioner’s medical documents did not establish
any serious condition preventing travel.
- It
was acknowledged that the Petitioner was capable of travelling; his
concern was only potential COVID-19 exposure.
- The
Court held that:
- Mere
apprehension of contracting COVID-19 is not sufficient ground to avoid
compliance with summons.
- Investigation
proceedings stand on a different footing from court trials; thus, video
conferencing precedents in trials are not directly applicable.
- Judicial
interference in ongoing investigations must be exercised with caution.
Final Order:
- The
writ petition was dismissed.
- Authorities were directed to follow all safety protocols and complete the statement recording expeditiously.
Important Clarifications by the Court
- Video
conferencing is not an absolute right in investigation proceedings.
- COVID-19
risk alone does not override statutory obligations under summons.
- Investigating
authorities have discretion regarding the mode of recording statements.
Balance of convenience cannot favor the Petitioner when investigation integrity
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2020:DHC:3282-DB/SVN18112020CW89752020_213830.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment