The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tuesonpower International (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition (L) NO. 40917 of 2025 order dated February 12, 2026] permitted the video recording during summon inquiry under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”) and also allowed the petitioner to be accompanied by an advocate at a visible but inaudible distance considering the petitioner’s cancer treatment and willingness to assist in the process and investigation.
Facts
M/s Tuesonpower International (P.) Ltd. (‘the Petitioner’) and its representatives received summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act regarding an inquiry pertaining to Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) availed on purchases made from specific suppliers.
The Union of India & Ors. (‘the Respondent’), through GST authorities, commenced the inquiry to verify the ITC claimed on purchases from M/s Zes Stock Enterprises and M/s New Era Enterprises, whose GST registrations were subsequently cancelled.
The Petitioner No. 2, who was under cancer treatment, requested for humanitarian consideration, which included permission for video recording and for an advocate to remain present during the summons inquiry at a visible but not audible distance.
The Respondent objected to the request, claiming that there was no need of any additional videography or security measures as the premises were already equipped with CCTV cameras.
Aggrieved by their request not being considered, the Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 with the Bombay High Court seeking permission for recording of statement and to have an advocate present during the summons proceedings.
Issue:
Whether a person summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act be allowed to have their statement video recorded and have an advocate present at a visible but inaudible distance for summon inquiry considering health conditions and cooperation with the process.
Held:
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (L) NO. 40917 of 2025 held as under:
- Noticed that, the Petitioner was undergoing cancer treatment and has demonstrated the willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
- Observed that, the request for video recording and presence of advocate is limited and reasonable in view of humanitarian grounds.
- Referred to the earlier ruling in Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 351 (Bom.) / (2023) 3 Centax 130 (Bom.)], where similar arrangements were allowed.
- Held that the statement of Petitioner No.2 ought to be recorded at the cost of the Petitioner.
- Directed that, the advocate may accompany the petitioner during the summons inquiry but they must be at a visible and inaudible distance not interfering or interrupting the court’s proceedings.
- Clarified that the order is passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
Our Comments:
According to the ruling in Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 351 (Bom.) / (2023) 3 Centax 130 (Bom.)], the Court held that the video recording of GST summons proceedings is not a taxpayer’s right and is at the discretion of GST officials. However, in the present case, the Court demonstrated that special protection in humanitarian and genuine situations can be provided.
The Court followed the principles of Article 21 that provides right to life and exhibited that the authorities must act humanely and safeguard the person’s health and dignity even during a GST enquiry thus the enforcement of provisions cannot disregard basic fundamental rights.
The Court also highlighted an important legal principle that courts grant legal protection to only those who cooperate with investigation and are bona-fide taxpayers.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 70. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents.
(1) The proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a civil court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
(1A) All persons summoned under sub-section (1) shall be bound to attend, either in person or by an authorised representative, as such officer may direct, and the person so appearing shall state the truth during examination or make statements or produce such documents and other things as may be required.
(2) Every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Section 116. Appearance by authorised representative.
(1) Any person who is entitled or required to appear before an officer appointed under this Act, or the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal in connection with any proceedings under this Act, may, otherwise than when required under this Act to appear personally for examination on oath or affirmation, subject to the other provisions of this section, appear by an authorised representative.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, the expression “authorised representative” shall mean a person authorised by the person referred to in sub-section (1) to appear on his behalf, being-
(a) his relative or regular employee; or
(b) an advocate who is entitled to practice in any court in India, and who has not been debarred from practicing before any court in India; or
(c) any chartered accountant, a cost accountant or a company secretary, who holds a certificate of practice and who has not been debarred from practice; or
(d) a retired officer of the Commercial Tax Department of any State Government or Union territory or of the Board who, during his service under the Government, had worked in a post not below the rank than that of a Group-B Gazetted officer for a period of not less than two years:
Provided that such officer shall not be entitled to appear before any proceedings under this Act for a period of one year from the date of his retirement or resignation; or
(e) any person who has been authorised to act as a goods and services tax practitioner on behalf of the concerned registered person.
(3) No person,-
(a) who has been dismissed or removed from Government service; or
(b) who is convicted of an offence connected with any proceedings under this Act, the State Goods and Services Tax Act, the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, or under the existing law or under any of the Acts passed by a State Legislature dealing with the imposition of taxes on sale of goods or supply of goods or services or both; or
(c) who is found guilty of misconduct by the prescribed authority;
(d) who has been adjudged as an insolvent, shall be qualified to represent any person under sub-section (1)-
(i) for all times in case of persons referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c); and
(ii) for the period during which the insolvency continues in the case of a person referred to in clause (d).
(4) Any person who has been disqualified under the provisions of the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act shall be deemed to be disqualified under this Act.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
