Petitioners entitled to copies of seized documents only when confronted with notices using those documents

Kerala HC partially allowed the petition regarding seized documents and investigation transfer. The court held that petitioners are entitled to copies of seized documents only when confronted with notices or proceedings relying on those documents. Respondents must provide copies before proceeding further and return unreferenced documents post-investigation. However, the court declined to transfer investigation files to Kollam, stating investigating authorities have administrative discretion over investigation location and procedures, with courts reluctant to interfere under Article 226.

---

---

Issues:
1. Request for copies of seized documents turned down by respondents.
2. Inconvenience caused to petitioners due to investigation based in Ernakulam.
3. Prayer for transfer of investigation to Kollam.
4. Administrative decisions of investigating authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners sought copies of documents seized by the respondents during an ongoing investigation under the GST Act. They claimed that their request for copies was denied by the respondents, leading to the present writ petitions. The petitioners argued that the investigation, centered in Ernakulam, caused inconvenience as their business activities were spread across different locations like Karunagappally, Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam, and Ernakulam. The prayer in the writ petition was for the respondents to issue copies of the seized documents and transfer the investigation to Kollam to avoid inconvenience.

2. The respondents, through a statement, explained that the investigation was based on internal work arrangements aimed at facilitating speedy disposal of the case. They highlighted that the allocation of files and work arrangements to tax officers was a matter of policy and administration within the Commercial Taxes Department. The respondents emphasized that the petitioners' request for a transfer of files to Kollam was not bonafide and was an attempt to delay the process. They also noted that the majority of the business operations of the group were concentrated in Ernakulam and Thrissur districts, justifying the investigation's location.

3. The court acknowledged the petitioners' right to seek copies of seized documents when confronted with notices or proceedings relying on those documents. It directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to take copies of such documents before proceeding further. However, the court rejected the petitioners' prayer for transferring the investigation to Kollam. It held that administrative decisions regarding the investigation's location fell within the investigating authority's discretion, and the court would not interfere in such matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by rejecting the transfer request to Kollam and directing the respondents to provide copies of the seized documents as required. The judgment emphasized the balance between the petitioners' rights to copies of documents and the investigating authority's administrative decisions, maintaining the integrity of the investigation process.

---