HC Allows Video Recording & Lawyer Presence in GST Summons Inquiry

Case Details: Tuesonpower International (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2026] 184 taxmann.com 631 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
• Abhishek A. Rastogi, Pooja Rastogi, Advs., Meenal Songire & Aarya for the Petitioner.
• Ram Ochani & Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was subjected to summons proceedings in connection with an enquiry on ITC availed on purchases claimed to have been made bona fide from certain suppliers. Another petitioner, to whom summons were issued, was undergoing cancer treatment and, in view of the same, filed a writ petition seeking limited relief that another petitioner be permitted to have an advocate present during the recording of his statement at a visible but not audible distance and that the proceedings be video recorded at his own cost. It was submitted that such requests were necessitated by medical condition and were made while expressing full willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that, considering the nature of the enquiry initiated pursuant to a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act and Maharashtra GST Act, and in light of the willingness expressed to cooperate, the limited requests deserved acceptance. It was observed that permitting the petitioner to record the statement at the petitioner’s cost would not prejudice the investigation and would ensure procedural transparency in the given facts. The Court held that allowing the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the summons proceedings was justified. Accordingly, the authorities were directed to permit video recording and allow the advocate’s presence as requested.

List of Cases Referred to

• Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (2023) 69 G.S.T.L. 351/(2023) 3 Centax 130 (Bom.) (para 6).