The Telangana High Court held that the GST Officials can not resort to physical violence while conducting an interrogation.
The petitioners are a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 involved in the business of steel.
The officials attached to the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, New Delhi conducted simultaneous raids on business units of the petitioner company and the residential house of the director around 08:30 a.m., without any prior intimation or show-cause notice.
It was the contention of petitioners that the employees of the petitioner company and also the director of the company co-operated with the search operations conducted.
However, it was submitted that respondent authorities also physically assaulted the petitioner without any regard to their old age when they tried to stop the physical assault on the 4th petitioner after hearing his loud cries, and as a result of such assault, the petitioner was hurt on the lips which got swollen and cut with bleeding and also suffered severe tooth pain.
It is the contention of the petitioners that several employees of the petitioner were also assaulted by the respondent’s officials or respondent authorities at the other business units of the petitioner.
The issues raised in this case was whether officials belonging to the G.S.T. Intelligence Department of the Union of India such as respondent authority in the Writ Petition can resort to physical violence while conducting an interrogation of the petitioners and their employees in connection with proceedings initiated against the petitioners by the respondents under the CGST Act, 2017 and IGST Act, 2017.
The Division Judge Bench of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice M.S. Goud held that the respondent authorities shall not use any acts of violence or torture against petitioner or their employees in furtherance of inquiry proceedings.
The court further ordered that any interrogation of petitioners or their employees shall be between 10:30 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. on weekdays in the visible range of an Advocate appointed by them, who shall not be in hearing range.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
