Court orders reconsideration of denial of copies under CGST Act, emphasizing transparency and fairness.

The court set aside the Proper Officer's decision denying petitioners copies of statements under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, emphasizing the need for transparency and fairness. It directed the Officer to reconsider the application, citing individuals' entitlement to copies of seized documents for proceedings. While dismissing the relief for file transfer in three petitions, the court closed the fourth petition solely seeking transfer of files. The judgment underscores the significance of providing reasons for decisions, ensuring access to pertinent information during investigations, and clarifying the legal framework on summons and document production under the CGST/KGST Act.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioners' request for transfer of files and copy of statements not considered by Proper Officer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around four writ petitions filed by tax payers seeking the transfer of files and copies of statements related to an investigation on supply of goods under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners requested the transfer of files to an officer near their place of business due to the pandemic and copies of statements given by other persons summoned in the enquiry. The Proper Officer refused these requests stating that the case was under investigation and the requests could not be considered. The petitioners argued that transfer of files and providing copies of statements are part of their constitutional rights.

The Proper Officer, through a counter affidavit, claimed that sharing sensitive information during the enquiry stage could harm the investigation. The officer also argued that transferring files as per the petitioners' choice would disrupt the investigative process. During the hearing, the petitioners decided not to press for the transfer of files due to improved pandemic conditions, rendering that claim moot. The court examined Section 67(5) of the CGST/KGST Act, which allows the person from whom documents are seized to make copies unless it affects the investigation adversely.

The court found that the Proper Officer failed to provide reasons for denying the petitioners' request for copies of statements, which is essential for transparency and fairness. It emphasized that reasons for refusal must be clearly stated in the order itself, as per legal precedents. The court also discussed the distinction between documents seized under Section 67(5) and statements given under Section 70 of the Act, highlighting that the power to summon witnesses does not change the nature of the investigation.

Ultimately, the court set aside the order denying the petitioners copies of statements and directed the Proper Officer to reconsider the application. It referenced previous judgments where individuals were entitled to copies of seized documents when relied upon in proceedings. The court allowed three writ petitions in part, dismissing the relief for transfer of files, and closed the fourth petition solely seeking transfer of files.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of providing reasons for decisions, upholding individuals' rights to access relevant information during investigations, and clarifying the legal framework regarding summons and document production under the CGST/KGST Act.

---