Advocate was allowed to join Interrogation of assessee with a visible range.

Case Title: Krushansinh Pratapsinh Zala v. State of Gujarat

Court: High Court of Gujarat

Petition Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 20149 of 2021

Date of Judgement: 22 December 2021

Category of Dispute: Summons under GST Investigation / Procedural Safeguards during Interrogation

Relevant Sections: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 482 CrPC, Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case

[Para 1–3]
The applicant, a partner in M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Petroleum, filed a writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking direction to allow his advocate to be present during interrogation by GST authorities and to prevent coercive action.
The case arises from a GST investigation into three firms—M/s. Arihant Exports, M/s. Khalef Exports, and M/s. Sudarshan International—alleged to be fake and involved in paper transactions availing fake ITC of ₹15.30 crore.
The applicant had acted as an “introducer” while these firms opened accounts in Gandhidham Mercantile Co-operative Bank, leading to suspicion of his involvement. He was summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act, and his statement was once recorded. Despite further summons, he did not appear.

Questions in Consideration

[Para 4–7]

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the presence of his advocate during interrogation in a visible but not audible distance.
2. Whether any coercive action should be prevented against the applicant during the ongoing investigation.
3. Whether the applicant’s role as an “introducer” to fake firms’ bank accounts prima facie implicates him in GST fraud.

Observations of the Court

[Para 8]
The Court noted that although the applicant was connected to the suspect accounts as an introducer, there was no direct evidence yet linking him to the fraudulent ITC transactions.
It acknowledged the applicant’s cooperation in one instance but observed that he had not appeared for subsequent summons.
Recognizing the importance of individual rights during interrogation, the Court permitted the applicant’s advocate to remain present during interrogation—but only at a visible but not audible distance.

Judgement of the Court

[Para 8]
The application was disposed of with a direction allowing the applicant’s advocate to be present during the interrogation at a visible but not audible distance.
No interim relief was granted in terms of barring coercive action, as the Court emphasized continued cooperation with the investigative process.

Between Fine Lines

• The Court balanced individual rights with the investigative needs of GST intelligence.
• Mere introduction of suspects at a bank does not automatically imply culpability but may warrant further scrutiny.
• Advocates may be present during interrogation, reinforcing procedural fairness, but cannot interfere.
• No immunity from investigation was granted; participation in summons is mandatory.
• Presence of counsel in a non-intrusive manner upholds both due process and authority’s efficacy.

Summary of Referred Cases