Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal VS The Director General of GST Intelligence  

This document concerns a legal application for modifying a previous court order dated September 20, 2019. The petitioner, invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeks a writ of mandamus—a judicial order compelling a public authority to perform a mandatory duty. Specifically, the petitioner requests that the court direct the respondents to refrain from causing any physical, mental, or verbal harassment to the petitioner while the investigation is ongoing. The modification application aims to address concerns related to the petitioner’s well-being during the pendency of the investigation. The court is now set to deliberate on this application and decide whether to grant the requested relief by modifying the earlier order.

In this case, the petitioner has filed an application seeking modification of a court order dated September 20, 2019, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, along with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to subject them to any physical, mental, or verbal harassment during the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner, represented by their counsel, argued that they have been the Director of M/s Dominion Expoventures Pvt. Ltd. since May 14, 2016. The company operates out of its office at FF-35-36, Omex Pearl Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi, and is involved in importing FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) items and tobacco products.

The petitioner came to know that the respondent agency conducted a search on September 11, 2019, at a property owned by the petitioner, located at J5/101E, Rajokri Garden, New Delhi. This property was rented out to a tenant identified as Mr. Jaiswar (also referred to as Mr. Jaiswal), who resided there with his wife. During the search, Mr. Jaiswar was allegedly manhandled by the respondent agency’s officers and was left in a state of trauma after being illegally detained.

Furthermore, it was submitted that another individual, Mr. Garg, who is an employee of the petitioner, was also illegally detained by the officers of the respondent agency. This detention has led to further concerns regarding the conduct of the investigation and the treatment of the petitioner and associated individuals.

The application seeks protection from any further harassment by the respondent agency during the investigation. The court is now tasked with deciding whether to modify its earlier order based on the petitioner’s claims and the circumstances surrounding the actions of the respondent agency.

This summary addresses an application for the modification of an order dated September 20, 2019, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from causing any form of harassment—physical, mental, or verbal—during the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner has been a Director of M/s Dominion Expoventures Pvt. Ltd. since May 14, 2016. The company is engaged in the import of FMCG items and tobacco products and operates from an office in New Delhi. The petitioner became aware that the respondent agency conducted a search on September 11, 2019, at a property in Rajokri Garden, New Delhi, which the petitioner had rented out to an individual named Mr. Jaiswar (also referred to as Mr. Jaiswal). During the search, Mr. Jaiswar was allegedly manhandled and illegally detained, leading to significant trauma.

The petition further details that an employee of the petitioner, Mr. Garg, was similarly detained and subjected to physical, mental, and verbal harassment by the officers of the respondent agency. The petitioner learned that during the search, the agency also inquired about him in relation to his company. The petitioner maintains his innocence, stating that he is willing to cooperate with the investigation if summoned.

However, the petitioner fears that the respondent agency may harass him in the same manner as others who have been recently summoned and detained. To support his concerns, the petitioner’s counsel cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of *Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani and Anr.* (1987(2) SCC 424), where it was held that certain protections are afforded to individuals during investigations to prevent harassment and coercion.

In light of these circumstances, the petitioner seeks modification of the earlier court order to ensure protection from any form of harassment during the pendency of the investigation.

In the given case, the petitioner has filed an application to modify an order dated September 20, 2019. This application, brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, requests a writ of mandamus. The writ would direct the respondents to refrain from causing any physical, mental, or verbal harassment to the petitioner during the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner has been serving as the Director of M/s Dominion Expoventures Pvt. Ltd. since May 14, 2016. The company, located at FF-35-36, Omex Pearl Tower, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi, is involved in importing FMCG items and tobacco products.

The petition highlights an incident on September 11, 2019, when the respondent agency conducted a search at a property rented by the petitioner. The tenant, Mr. Jaiswar (also known as Mr. Jaiswal), was reportedly manhandled and traumatized by the agency’s officers. Additionally, an employee of the petitioner, Mr. Garg, was also allegedly detained and mistreated by the respondent agency.

The petitioner learned that during the search, the respondent agency was inquiring about him and his company. The petitioner claims to be innocent and has expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation if formally summoned.

The petitioner fears potential harassment by the respondent agency based on reports from others who have been recently detained. In support, the petitioner’s counsel referenced the Supreme Court case Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L.Dani and Anr., which underscores the importance of legal representation during interrogation to protect constitutional rights.

The counsel also pointed out that under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, the maximum punishment is five years of imprisonment, and according to Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person cannot be arrested if they comply with the investigation requirements, thereby arguing against the potential for arrest and harassment in this case.

In this case, the petitioner has filed an application to modify an earlier order dated September 20, 2019, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner requests a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from causing any physical, mental, or verbal harassment during the investigation.

The petitioner is the Director of M/s Dominion Expoventures Pvt. Ltd., a company involved in importing FMCG items and tobacco products. On September 11, 2019, the respondent agency conducted a search at a property rented by the petitioner. During this search, the tenant, Mr. Jaiswar (also known as Mr. Jaiswal), was reportedly manhandled and traumatized by the officers. Additionally, an employee of the petitioner, Mr. Garg, was allegedly detained and mistreated.

The petitioner claims to have been informed that the agency was inquiring about him and his company during the search. He maintains his innocence and is willing to cooperate if formally summoned. However, he fears potential harassment based on reports from others who were recently detained by the agency.

The petitioner’s counsel cited the Supreme Court case Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L.Dani, emphasizing the right to legal representation during interrogation to protect constitutional rights. They also argued that under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, which prescribes a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment, and Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which limit arrest conditions, the petitioner should not face undue harassment.

In this case, the petitioner has filed an application to modify a court order from September 20, 2019. This request, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeks a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondent agency from causing any physical, mental, or verbal harassment to the petitioner during the ongoing investigation.

The petitioner, who has been the Director of M/s Dominion Expoventures Pvt. Ltd. since May 14, 2016, operates a business dealing in FMCG items and tobacco products. The petitioner’s complaint stems from a search conducted by the respondent agency on September 11, 2019, at a property rented by him. The search allegedly involved the manhandling and illegal detention of the tenant, Mr. Jaiswar (also known as Mr. Jaiswal), and the mistreatment of an employee, Mr. Garg.

The petitioner, who claims innocence, learned that the respondent agency was inquiring about him and his company during the search. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation if formally summoned but fears potential harassment based on reports from others who have been detained by the agency.

The petitioner’s counsel referenced the Supreme Court case *Nandini Satpathy vs. P.L. Dani and Anr.* to argue that the petitioner’s right to legal representation during interrogation should be upheld. They also noted that under Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017, the maximum punishment is five years, and since the offences are compoundable under Section 138, arrest and harassment should be avoided.

The petitioner is prepared to comply with any conditions the court might impose to ensure their presence at the trial or investigation. The petitioners seek court protection against harassment and request that any interrogation be conducted in the presence of their lawyer, as established by the Supreme Court in the referenced case.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: