Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the manner in which summons proceedings were being conducted under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The summons were issued in connection with an inquiry into input tax credit (ITC) availed by the company on purchases from certain suppliers whose GST registrations were subsequently cancelled.

The petitioners contended that the transactions were genuine, supported by valid tax invoices, duly reflected in statutory returns, and paid through banking channels. The petition was confined to two limited safeguards: (i) permission to videograph the summons proceedings at the petitioner’s own cost, and (ii) permission for legal counsel to remain present during questioning at a visible but not audible distance. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that Petitioner No. 2 was undergoing treatment for cancer and had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation.

The Revenue opposed the request, arguing that the petitioner must cooperate fully with the inquiry and that the premises were already equipped with CCTV cameras, rendering additional videography unnecessary. Reliance was placed by the petitioners on the decision in Suumaya Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, where similar safeguards were permitted.

Issue:

Whether, in summons proceedings under Section 70 of the CGST Act, the petitioner is entitled to (i) videography of statement recording at his own cost, and (ii) presence of an advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the inquiry.

Held that:

The Court held that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the limited safeguards sought by the petitioners deserved acceptance. The Court observed that the petitioner had confined the relief sought and had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. It also noted that a coordinate bench had previously permitted similar arrangements.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the statements recorded during the summons inquiry be videographed at the petitioner’s expense. It further permitted the petitioner’s advocate to accompany the summoned person, provided that the advocate would sit at a visible but non-audible distance and would not interfere, interrupt, or disturb the recording of statements. The Court clarified that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms without costs.

Case Name: Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr. dated 12.02.2026