Court grants relief in mandamus case for document supply & protection against coercive actions

The court granted relief in favor of the petitioner in a case involving entitlement to mandamus for the supply of documents and statements, interim protection against coercive actions under Section 69 of the CGST Act, and direction for respondents to complete adjudication and assessment following due process. The court directed the respondents to provide the requested documents, granted interim protection to the petitioner, and instructed completion of the adjudication process within twelve weeks, emphasizing adherence to due process and statutory provisions under the CGST Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to mandamus for supply of documents and statements.
2. Interim protection against coercive actions under Section 69 of the CGST Act.
3. Direction for respondents to complete adjudication and assessment following due process.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Mandamus for Supply of Documents and Statements:
The petitioner, an assessee under the CGST Act, 2017, faced an investigation starting from 15.10.2018, resulting in the seizure of documents and records. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner was not provided with copies of these documents or statements recorded during the investigation. The court noted that Section 67(5) of the CGST Act allows withholding documents if it prejudices the investigation, but the respondents did not claim such prejudice in their counter affidavit. Therefore, the court directed the respondents to provide copies of the seized documents and statements within two weeks upon remittance of copying charges. This issue was resolved in favor of the petitioner.

2. Interim Protection Against Coercive Actions Under Section 69 of the CGST Act:
The petitioner alleged harassment and intimidation by the department, including threats of arrest under Section 69 of the CGST Act. The court emphasized that punishment under Section 132 of the CGST Act requires a determination of the offence post-assessment. It referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that arrest powers should not be used without following due process. The court found the department's actions premature and contrary to the scheme of the Act, granting interim protection to the petitioner. This issue was also resolved in favor of the petitioner.

3. Direction for Respondents to Complete Adjudication and Assessment Following Due Process:
The petitioner sought a directive for the respondents to complete the adjudication process and make an assessment in accordance with the law. The court directed the respondents to issue a show cause notice, provide the petitioner an opportunity to respond, and complete the adjudication process within twelve weeks. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the procedural issues and would not prejudice the final assessment. This issue was resolved in favor of the petitioner.

Additional Observations:
- The court rejected the department's request to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum as security, stating that a statement is not a substitute for an assessment.
- The court highlighted Section 83 of the CGST Act, which allows for provisional attachment of property to protect revenue interests, suggesting that the department could use this provision if necessary.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to provide the requested documents and statements, granting interim protection to the petitioner, and instructing the respondents to complete the adjudication process within twelve weeks. The court emphasized adherence to due process and statutory provisions in the investigation and assessment under the CGST Act.

---