Madras High Court
Ashish Mundhra vs The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 28 December, 2023
W.P.No.33570 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.33570 of 2023 and
WMP No.36448 of 2023
Ashish Mundhra ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Rep. by its Joint Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi 110001.
2. The Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Chennai Zonal Unit, Lakshmi Colony,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
3. The Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Indore Zonal Unit, First Floor,
BSNL Telephone Exchange Building,
Transport Nagar, Indore 452 001,
Madhyapradesh. ... Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take
any coercive steps against the petitioner, permit the counsel for the
petitioner to be present within the vicinity of the enquiry table and
also to video-graph the enquiry process, by storing the data till the
completion of the proceedings in Summons No.CBIC-DIN-
202311DDJ30000222C7B, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33570 of 2023
Supreme Court of India in its Judgements in the case of Shafhi
Mohammad Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and batch., reported
in 2018(5) SCC 311 and in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit
Singh and others reported in 2021(1) SCC 184.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Gopinath
For Respondents : Mr.J.Sunil Kumar
ORDER
The relief sought for in the writ petition is as follows.
To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to take
any coercive steps against the petitioner, permit the counsel for the
petitioner to be present within the vicinity of the enquiry table and
also to video-graph the enquiry process, by storing the data till the
completion of the proceedings in Summons No.CBIC-DIN-
202311DDJ30000222C7B, as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in its Judgements in the case of Shafhi
Mohammad Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and batch., reported in
2018(5) SCC 311 and in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit
Singh and others reported in 2021(1) SCC 184.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is willing to appear, pursuant to the summons issued
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by the third respondent and he fears that during the course of
interrogation, he might not be treated in a humane manner.
3.Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Mr.R.Gopinath, referred two judgments of the Supreme Court of
India in (2019) 18; Supreme Court Cases 821 and 2023 SCC
Online SC 1552 and pleaded that i) the entire proceedings may be
videographed by the second respondent and ii) an Advocate may be
permitted to be in the vicinity of the interrogation.
4. Mr.Sunil Kumar, representing Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned
Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that
such a course of action cannot be adopted as it would interfere with
the process of interrogation.
5. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents. In case, a new system of videography is introduced
at the time of interrogation, then the purpose of the interrogation
being conducted might not bear fruit. However, I cannot be
insensitive to the fact that the petitioner is entitled to be interrogated
in a manner, which has been enumerated by the Supreme Court of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
India in the afore said judgments.
6. Therefore, the following order is passed:
i) The petitioner shall appear before the third respondent for
interrogation, pursuant to the summons issued by the third
respondent.
ii) The petitioner shall appear before the third respondent on
03.01.2024.
iii) The third respondent shall permit Mr.R.Gopinath, Advocate
to be present at the time of interrogation, but the learned counsel,
who accompanies the petitioner should sit within the visible range,
but beyond the audible range of interrogation.
iv) The prayer in sofar as the videograph of interrogation is
concerned, is rejected.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
Consequently, the civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.12.2023
mst/pri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes/ No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Joint Director,
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi 110001.
2. The Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Chennai Zonal Unit, Lakshmi Colony,
T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017.
3. The Senior Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Indore Zonal Unit, First Floor,
BSNL Telephone Exchange Building,
Transport Nagar, Indore 452 001,
Madhyapradesh
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
mst/pri
28.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
