Case Details: Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 41 Centax 31 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
- S/Shri Abhishek A. Rastogi, Pooja Rastogi, Advs., Meenal Songire & Aarya More, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ram Ochani & Sangeeta Yadav, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Proceedings were initiated under Section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with an inquiry relating to input tax credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner company on purchases stated to have been made from certain suppliers. Pursuant to such inquiry, summons were issued to the petitioner requiring appearance and furnishing of information and documents. It was contended that the transactions were genuine, supported by valid tax invoices and reflected in statutory returns, and that payments had been made through proper banking channels, while cancellation of suppliers’ registrations was under challenge before the appropriate authorities. The petitioner submitted that there was a willingness to cooperate with the investigation, and further emphasised that the petitioner was undergoing cancer treatment, necessitating humanitarian consideration. In this background, a writ petition was filed seeking permission for the presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the summons proceedings and for video recording of the statement at the petitioner’s own cost. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that, considering the nature of the inquiry under Section 70 of the CGST Act and the expressed willingness of the petitioner to cooperate, the limited reliefs sought deserved to be granted in the peculiar facts of the case. It was observed that the medical condition of the petitioner, who was undergoing cancer treatment, warranted appropriate consideration while ensuring that the investigation process remained unaffected. The Court noted that similar arrangements had been accepted in earlier decisions and found merit in extending such safeguards in the present case. Accordingly, it directed that the statement of the petitioner be video recorded at the petitioner’s cost and permitted the advocate to remain present during the proceedings at a visible but not audible distance, without interfering with the recording of the statement. It was further clarified that the directions were confined to the facts of the case and would not be treated as a precedent.
List of Cases Cited
- Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — (2023) 3 Centax 130 (Bom.) = 2023 (69) G.S.T.L. 351 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 6]
