High Court Permits Videography of CGST Summons and Advocate Presence Beyond Audible Range:

High Court Permits Videography of CGST Summons and Advocate Presence Beyond Audible Range On February 12, 2026, the Bombay High Court allowed videographing of CGST summons proceedings at the petitioner’s expense and permitted the advocate's presence beyond audible distance, citing its own earlier ruling. The Honourable Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay have announced their decision on a petition filed by Tuesonpower International Pvt. Ltd. and another against the Union of India and another. The final decision on the matter was announced on February 12, 2026.

Also Read

ICAI Disciplinary Committee Reprimands CA for Incorrect TDS Reporting in Form 3CD

The key request raised in the present petition is that Petitioner No. 2, who had received a summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, should be allowed to have an advocate to attend the hearing of the summons proceedings by sitting at a visible but not audible distance. The petitioner should have requested that the hearing be videographed at their own cost. The petitioner had also requested some other reliefs; however, they have not been stressed in the present stage. The summons concerned an inquiry conducted on an input tax credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner on purchases from two suppliers, M/s. Zes Stock Enterprises and M/s. New Era Enterprises. As per the petitioner, the said transactions were genuine and were supported by proper tax invoices, were duly reflected in GSTR-2B returns, and all payments were made through proper banking channels. It was further flagged that the GST registrations of the supplier were cancelled, and appeals are pending. Also, the second petitioner is suffering from cancer.

Also Read

Rs. 590 Crore Fraud Unearthed at IDFC FIRST Bank’s Chandigarh Branch; Four Employees Suspended

However, the respondents raised arguments on the prayers raised by the petitioner and said they should cooperate and observed that CCTV cameras were already fitted in their premises. However, when the court analysed the facts of the case, it permitted videographing in the current case at the petitioner's own expense and also allowed the petitioner to have an advocate to be present in the hearing of summons proceedings, but not within audible distance. To support this ruling, the court also cited an earlier ruling of its own in a case titled Suumaya Industries Ltd v. Union of India, where a similar arrangement was allowed.