2020 (7) TMI 343 - HC - GST

Court upholds right to copy seized documents under GST Act, directs compliance with specified timeline.

J.S. Pigments Private Ltd. Versus The State of West Bengal And Ors.

The High Court of Calcutta ruled in an appeal concerning seized documents under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court affirmed the ... Participation in the proceedings - permission to make copies of the seized documents - HELD THAT:- There is a provision in law as has been placed by Mr. Dugar that “the person from whose custody documents are seized under subsection (2) shall be entitled to make copies thereof.” - There is no ambiguity or illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. However, we direct the appellant/petitioner to take steps in terms of Section 67 subsection 5 under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, if he is so advised. If the appellant/petitioner takes steps as per said subsection 5 of Section 67 under Chapter XIV of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, then the respondent no. 3 is directed to allow the appellant/petitioner to make copies of the seized documents by 13th July, 2020 subject to compliance of statutory formalities. The appellant /petitioner is directed to give written reply to the show cause notice by 20th July, 2020. Issues:- Appeal against order dated 18th June, 2020 regarding seized documents under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.- Entitlement of the appellant to make copies of seized documents.- Failure of the appellant to avail the opportunity to make copies.- Dismissal of the appeal as premature due to no fixed hearing date.Analysis:The judgment before the High Court of Calcutta involved an appeal by the petitioner against an order dated 18th June, 2020, concerning seized documents under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Dugar, argued that without access to copies of the seized documents, they could not effectively participate in the proceedings. Mr. Dugar relied on Section 67(5) of the Act, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to make copies of the documents in the presence of an authorized officer, unless it prejudicially affects the investigation.Mr. Dugar further highlighted that despite the petitioner's requests for certified copies of the seized documents, the authority had not taken any steps to provide them. On the other hand, Mr. Majumder, representing the State, contended that since no hearing date had been set, the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. He argued against the urgency of entertaining the appeal and related applications at that stage.The respondent's advocate, Mr. Ganguli, pointed out that the law allowed the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for making copies of the seized documents. However, he noted that the petitioner had not utilized this provision before directly filing the writ petition. After considering the arguments from all parties and examining the records, the Court acknowledged the provision in Section 67(5) of the Act, affirming the petitioner's right to make copies of the seized documents.The Court expressed disappointment that the petitioner had not taken advantage of this opportunity thus far. While finding no ambiguity or illegality in the impugned order, the Court directed the petitioner to proceed as per Section 67(5) of the Act. It ordered the respondent to allow the petitioner to make copies of the seized documents by 13th July, 2020, subject to fulfilling statutory requirements. Consequently, the appeal and related applications were disposed of, with the petitioner instructed to respond to the show cause notice by 20th July, 2020. The Court also granted urgent certified copies of the judgment to the respective advocates upon request.