GST investigation venue cannot be dictated by the assessee; Article 226 relief was refused, and departmental discretion was upheld.

Article 226 interference was held unwarranted in a GST investigation transfer request. The Court found that the Department has discretion to choose the officer conducting the investigation, and the assessee cannot insist on a particular venue or officer merely because the head office and accounts are said to be at Kollam. It also noted that inspection findings indicated substantial business activity and multiple premises in the Ernakulam zone, while Section 35 of the CGST and Kerala SGST regime requires books of account to be kept at the business premises. Convenience of counsel and the COVID situation were not accepted as grounds to shift the proceedings, and the request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under Article 226 was warranted to direct continuation of the GST investigation by an officer at Kollam instead of Ernakulam.

Analysis: The petitioners sought transfer of the proceedings on the grounds that their head office was at Kollam, that the accounts were maintained there, and that the COVID situation and convenience of counsel justified the change. The Department relied on the inspection findings, including the presence of a substantial volume of business at Ernakulam, the inspection of several business premises within the Ernakulam zone, and the statutory requirement under Section 35 of the CGST and Kerala SGST regime that books of account be kept at the business premises. The Court held that the choice of the officer conducting the investigation lay with the Department and that the assessee could not insist on a particular officer or venue. It further held that the location of counsel was not a ground to compel the Department to shift the proceedings.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was declined and the request to shift the proceedings to Kollam was rejected.

---