Madhya Pradesh high court turns down GST officers’ petition for the presence of a lawyer during search and seizure

The Madhya Pradesh high court on Friday rejected a petitioner’s plea for the presence of a lawyer during the search and seizure of a sweet betel factory under Section 67 of the products and Services Tax (GST) Act. A division bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Vandana Kasrekar stated that the petitioner has did not cite any ‘statutory provision or any legal right’ in support of his request. during this case, the factory unit of the petitioner was sealed within the case of alleged evasion and he was issued notice to be present during the method of search and seizure within the plant premises. The petitioner had expressed apprehension that the search and seizure process couldn’t be conducted in an impartial manner which the authorities could force him to form a confessional statement of the fees. that’s why he sought permission to possess his lawyer present during the search and seizure process

GST officers petition

The Bench dismissed the petition keeping in mind that the petitioner cited neither any statutory provision nor any legal provision in support of his request. The Bench relied on the choice of the apex court within the case ‘Poolpandi et al. v Superintendent, Central Excise et al. (1992) 3 SCC 259’, stating that the search process and therefore the action of the Customs Office under The presence of a lawyer during questioning of the person can’t be approved in the least.

The apex court said therein judgment: “If everything is completed consistent with the desire of the accused from whom the Customs Department is to urge important information, then the aim of the method of investigation under the Customs Act and other similar laws are going to be nullified. If the authorities concerned Feels that so as to realize the important purpose of an investigation, the concerned accused should be kept break away the persons or environment encouraging non-cooperation with the legal machinery, then objection can’t be lodged for the legal purpose of denying such cooperation.

“within the present case, the petitioner also said that under Section 67 of the GST Act, two neutral local witnesses are required for investigation, search and seizure, but the defendants want to be searched ahead of their ‘arbitrary witnesses’. The bench, however, sidelined this argument, because the defendant-authorities had assured that “two neutral witnesses would be placed under the purview of the law and therefore the procedure would be followed in letter and spirit.”

GST officers petition

The bench dismissed the petition and said, “In this case, the search is to be conducted and therefore the counsel for the defendants has assured the court that the above provisions are going to be fully complied with, so there’s no got to give any guidelines during this regard. Another request from the petitioner’s counsel is that the search should happen within the presence of the advocate, but the petitioner’s counsel has did not mention any statutor favour vision or any such right in favour of his client’s request. ” Case Details: Director-General shi et al. vs. Director-General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) et al. Case no. : Writ Petition No. 9184/2020 Quorum: Justice Prakash Srivastava and Justice Vandana Kasrekar Lawyers: Senior Advocate Sunil Jain and Advocate Kushagra Jain (for the petitioner), Advocate Prasanna Prasad (for the defendant)