Court orders authorities to provide seized document copies within 2 weeks, upholding petitioner's rights.

The court found the refusal to provide copies of seized documents unjustified and ordered the respondent authorities to furnish them within two weeks, in line with the petitioner's rights under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017. The writ petition was disposed of with a directive for compliance with this order.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Refusal to supply seized documents.
2. Compliance with SEBI regulations.
3. Impact on statutory compliance and penalties.
4. Legal provisions under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.
5. Right to receive copies of seized documents.
6. Reasonableness of withholding documents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Refusal to supply seized documents:

The petitioner questioned the refusal by the Officers of the Director-General of GST Intelligence, Mumbai to supply documents seized during a search conducted on 9 and 10 January 2019. The petitioner requested these documents to comply with statutory requirements but was denied access.

2. Compliance with SEBI regulations:

The petitioner, a listed company, faced notices from the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange for non-submission of financial results. As per Regulation 33 of the SEBI (Listing Obligation and Disclosure Requirement) Regulation, 2015, the company is required to submit quarterly, half-yearly, and yearly financial results within specified timeframes.

3. Impact on statutory compliance and penalties:

Due to the non-availability of the seized documents, the petitioner could not comply with the financial submission requirements, resulting in a penalty notice from the Bombay Stock Exchange. The penalty was Rs. 1,06,200/- payable till 17 June 2019, and thereafter Rs. 5,000/- per day.

4. Legal provisions under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017:

The court examined the powers conferred under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, specifically Chapter XIV dealing with inspection, search, seizure, and arrest. Section 67 of the Act empowers officers to inspect, search, and seize documents if there is a reason to believe that a taxable person has suppressed transactions or claimed excess input tax credit.

5. Right to receive copies of seized documents:

The court noted that Section 67(5) of the Act provides the right for a person from whose custody documents are seized to obtain copies thereof unless it prejudicially affects the investigation. The legislative intent is to prevent needless harassment and ensure that businesses are not unduly burdened.

6. Reasonableness of withholding documents:

The court scrutinized the respondents' argument that providing copies would prejudice the investigation. It found the reasoning insufficient as the originals were with the authorities, and the petitioner had soft copies. The court emphasized that the opinion to withhold documents must be based on cogent reasons and not merely a reproduction of statutory language.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the refusal to provide copies of the seized documents was unjustifiable. It mandated the respondent authorities to furnish copies of the documents within two weeks, recognizing the petitioner's right under Section 67(5) of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of with a directive to comply with this order.

---