Amit Joshi VS Commissioner of CGST

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Courts to issue certain writs. The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ to protect and safeguard fundamental rights, specifically focusing on the right to life, liberty, dignity, and a fair investigation. The petition highlights concerns about the alleged illegal actions of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) officials and requests the court’s intervention to monitor the ongoing investigation into the case. The petitioner is asking the court to ensure that the investigation is conducted fairly and justly, without any violation of constitutional rights by the authorities. The core issues revolve around the protection of the petitioner’s fundamental rights and the need for judicial oversight to prevent any potential abuse of power by the CGST officials involved in the investigation.

In this case, the petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ to protect their rights to life, liberty, dignity, and a fair investigation. The petitioner is requesting the court to examine the alleged illegal actions of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) officials and to oversee the investigation related to their case.

The petitioner’s counsel has requested that the court obtain the investigation records from the respondents and evaluate them against the principles of fair investigation. Additionally, the counsel has asked the court to monitor the ongoing investigation until either a Show Cause Notice is issued or a formal complaint is filed. The petitioner also seeks an order directing the respondents to submit bi-monthly reports to the court detailing the progress of the investigation.

The court has issued a notice in response to the petition. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has acknowledged the notice on behalf of the respondents and has requested time to file a status report. The court has instructed that the status report be submitted two days before the next hearing, scheduled for May 18, 2020.

Alongside the main petition, an interim application has been filed by the petitioner. This application requests the court to direct the respondents to conduct the investigation without resorting to any coercive measures. Additionally, the petitioner asks for the video recording of their statements during the investigation and requests permission for their lawyer to be present at a visible but inaudible distance during the proceedings.

This case involves a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ to protect their right to life, liberty, dignity, and to ensure a fair investigation. The petitioner also requests the court to examine the alleged illegal actions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) officials and to oversee the investigation of the case.

The petitioner’s counsel has requested that the court call for the investigation records from the respondents’ office and scrutinize them based on the principles of fair investigation. Furthermore, the counsel has requested that the court monitor the investigation until the issuance of a Show Cause Notice or the filing of a complaint. The petitioner also seeks an order for the respondents to submit bi-monthly reports on the progress of the investigation to the court.

Upon receiving notice, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents acknowledged the notice and requested time to file a status report. The court directed that the status report be filed two days before the next hearing, scheduled for May 18, 2020.

Additionally, the petitioner filed an interim application requesting that the respondents be directed to conduct the investigation without using coercive methods and to video record the applicant’s statements. The petitioner also requested that their lawyer be allowed to be present at a visible but inaudible distance during the interrogation.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the applicant was illegally detained on March 7, 2020, for three days, during which they were subjected to physical abuse and coerced into making incriminating statements. The counsel contended that the investigation was not being conducted according to the law and reiterated the request for the lawyer’s presence during interrogation.

In response, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents claimed that the investigation was being conducted lawfully and that the petitioner had not been tortured during interrogation. The counsel referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Pool Pandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors.* (1992) to support the legality of the ongoing investigation procedures. The case is ongoing, with further proceedings pending.

The petitioner has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution seeking a writ to protect their rights to life, liberty, dignity, and fair investigation, while also addressing the alleged illegal actions of the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) officials. The petitioner requests that the court review the investigation records to ensure they comply with legal standards for fair investigation. Additionally, the petitioner seeks court supervision of the investigation process until a Show Cause Notice is issued or a complaint is filed, and asks for bi-monthly updates from the respondents on the investigation’s progress.

During the proceedings, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents accepted the notice and requested time to file a status report, which is to be submitted two days before the next hearing scheduled for 18.05.2020.

An interim application was also submitted, requesting that the investigation be conducted without coercive measures, with video recordings of the applicant’s statements, and allowing the presence of the applicant’s lawyer at a visible but inaudible distance. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the applicant was detained illegally for three days starting from 07.03.2020, during which they were allegedly tortured and coerced into making incriminating statements. The petitioner claims that the investigation is not being conducted lawfully and demands the lawyer’s presence during questioning.

The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents countered that the investigation is being conducted according to the law, and the petitioner has not faced torture. Regarding the presence of a lawyer during interrogation, the respondents referenced the judgment in *Pool Pandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. 1992 AIR 1795 (SC)*, which ruled against allowing lawyer presence during questioning under the Customs Act. The petitioner’s counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment in *Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Jugal Kishore Samra* to support their request, but this case was deemed distinguishable due to its unique facts, including the accused’s medical condition, and was not applicable in this context.

This case involves a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting a writ to protect the petitioner’s rights to life, liberty, dignity, and a fair investigation. The petitioner seeks the court’s intervention to examine and monitor the actions of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) officials involved in their case. Specifically, the petitioner wants the court to review the investigation records, ensure the investigation is conducted fairly, and to monitor the process until a Show Cause Notice is issued or a complaint is filed. Additionally, the petitioner requests that the respondents provide bi-monthly updates on the investigation’s progress.

At a hearing, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents acknowledged the notice and requested time to file a status report, which is due two days before the next hearing on May 18, 2020.

An interim application was also submitted, requesting that the investigation be conducted without coercion, that statements be video recorded, and that the petitioner’s lawyer be allowed to be present at a visible but inaudible distance. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents asked for time to reply to this application, but the petitioner’s counsel pressed for immediate directions.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the applicant was illegally detained, tortured, and coerced into giving an incriminating statement, asserting that the investigation is not being conducted legally. They requested that a lawyer be present during interrogation.

In response, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the investigation is lawful and that the petitioner is not being tortured. Regarding the presence of a lawyer, the respondents cited a Supreme Court judgment in *Pool Pandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. (1992 AIR 1795)*, which states that the presence of a lawyer during questioning under the Customs Act is not permitted. They also referenced *Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Jugal Kishore Samra (Crl. Appl No. 1266/2011)*, noting that the judgment in that case was based on specific circumstances, including the respondent’s medical condition, which makes it distinguishable from the current case.

This document pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention to protect the petitioner’s rights to life, liberty, dignity, and a fair investigation. The petitioner requests that the court review the investigation conducted by the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) officials for any illegal acts and oversee the investigation process.

The petitioner’s counsel has asked the court to call for the records of the investigation from the respondents’ office and to review these records to ensure they adhere to legal standards for fair investigation. They further request that the court monitor the case’s investigation until a Show Cause Notice is issued or a complaint is filed. Additionally, they seek a directive for bi-monthly progress reports from the respondents.

The court has issued a notice, and the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents has accepted it and requested time to file a status report, which is due two days before the next hearing on May 18, 2020.

Alongside this petition, an interim application has been filed, requesting the court to direct the respondents to conduct the investigation without employing coercive methods, to video record the applicant’s statements, and to allow the presence of a lawyer at a visible but inaudible distance during questioning. The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents seeks time to respond to this application, but the petitioner’s counsel insists on immediate directions.

The petitioner’s counsel alleges that the applicant was detained illegally from March 7, 2020, for three days, during which they were allegedly tortured and coerced into making incriminating statements. They argue that the investigation is not being conducted lawfully and request that the lawyer’s presence be permitted.

In response, the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents asserts that the investigation is being conducted legally and denies any allegations of torture. They refer to previous judgments to support their stance. Notably, they cite the Supreme Court judgment in ‘Pool Pandi vs. Superintendent, Central Excise and Ors. (1992 AIR 1795)’, which states that the presence of a lawyer is not required during questioning under the Customs Act. This judgment asserts that constitutional rights do not extend to allowing a lawyer’s presence during such investigations, emphasizing that the purpose of the inquiry should not be hindered by the preferences of those under investigation.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law