1. By way of this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicants prays for appropriate direction to the respondent namely Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit and Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence-RU, Zonal Unit, DGGI-GRU, Gandhidham to allow the presence of applicant’s advocate at a visible but not audible distance during the course of interrogation and/or recording of the statement of the applicant in accordance as and called upon by the respondents and not to take any coercive actions against the applicant.

2. Respondent no.3 – Intelligence Officer has issued summons to the applicant under Section 70 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 2017 for short). The Preventive Section, CGST, Gandhidham conducted an inquiry with respect to three firms namely M/s. Arihant Exports, M/s. Khalef Exports and M/s. Sudarshan International and found that the firms were fake one and were involved in paper transactions and they had taken input tax credit from nonexistent firms and therefore, amount of ITC claim by three firms amounting to ₹ 15,30,83,700/- was found bogus and fraudulent, being availed through paper transaction. The three firms had their accounts in “The Gandhidham Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited”, Gandhidham. The present applicant is the partner of M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak Petroleum and is involved in the petroleum business. While opening the account by three firms, the applicant acted as ‘introducer’ and as per the input, the applicant having some link with the suspicious transaction conducted in the name of three firms as referred hereinabove.

3. In the aforesaid context, the applicant was summoned by the authority and his statement was recorded on 26.02.2021. Thereafter, the applicant was summoned twice, but he did not remain present and lastly summons was issued to appear before the authority on 28.10.2021. It is the case of the applicant that his firm is maintaining current account with Mercantile Co-operative Bank, Gandhidham and due to his frequent visits with the bank, he met the persons who were present in the bank to open their current account and on their request, he had signed as an “introducer” of the bank account and has nothing to do with the alleged input tax credit transaction.

4. In the aforesaid facts, the applicant being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority for issuance of summons has prayed for the relief as referred above.

5. Heard Mr. Chetan Pandya, learned advocate assisted by Ms. Hetal Patel, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Devang Vyas, learned A.S.G assisted by Mr. Chirayu Mehta, learned advocate for the respondents no.2 and 3 and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP for the respondent-State.

6. Mr. Chetan Pandya, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the office premises of the applicant had been already searched by the authority and panchnama was being drawn at the place and his statement under Section 70 of the Act, 2017 was recorded. However, nothing incriminating being found against the present applicant to link him with the alleged transactions made by three firms. He urged that the applicant has never entered into transaction with the alleged firms and with a bonafide intention, he has submitted his identification documents as an “introducer” of the alleged firms for opening current account in Mercantile Bank, Gandhidham. He submitted that till date, the authority has not issued any notice either under Section 61, 73 or 74 of the Act, 2017.

7. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned ASG for the respondents no.2 and 3 reiterating the facts mentioned in the affidavit in reply filed by Assistant Director of Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad to submit that the applicant is having some nexus with the suspicious transactions entered into by three firms. He submitted that during the investigation, one Mr. Satyavan – proprietor of M/s. Khalef Exports disclosed that his signatures were forged for opening of the account with the bank and he has never opened any such account. In this context, Mr. Vyas, learned ASG submitted that statement of the applicant herein is required to be recorded to explain his role in opening of the bank accounts of non-existent firms to ascertain that whether his role is coincidental in nature or is a part of execution of conspiracy to cause substantial loss to the government exchequer. He submitted that for further investigation of the case, the summons have been issued to the applicant and instead of appearing before the authority, the applicant filed the present application which may not be entertained. Therefore, no case is made out for granting any interim relief.

8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the role attributed to the present applicant in the alleged transaction, I am of the view that the applicant’s advocate is permitted to be present during interrogation of the applicant, but he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible distance and the concerned advocate must be prepared to be present whenever the applicant is called upon to attend the interrogation.

In view of aforesaid, the present application stands disposed of.