GST Authorities Must Provide Adequate Reasons When Rejecting Requests for Investigation Statements Under CGST/SGST Act

The HC disposed of writ appeals challenging rejection orders for copies of statements recorded during GST investigations. The court found the rejection reason "cannot be considered" insufficient and directed the respondent to reconsider the applications independently. The judgment emphasized that authorities must provide adequate reasons for denying document requests and cannot introduce new justifications through affidavits that weren't in the original order. The court ordered reconsideration in accordance with CGST/SGST Act provisions, taking into account the current stage of investigation without being influenced by previous judicial observations.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of copy of statements recorded in the course of investigation and non-collection of tax for outward supply of rice.

Analysis:
The judgment involved multiple writ petitions challenging rejection orders related to the grant of copies of statements recorded during an investigation and the non-collection of tax for outward supply of rice. The main issue revolved around the denial of the appellants' request for copies of statements recorded by the respondents during the enquiry. The Sales Tax Officer had issued summons to a Director of the company, and upon his appearance, a statement was recorded. The appellants sought copies of these statements and requested the transfer of enquiry files, which were denied without specific reasons provided in the rejection orders.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the arguments, referred to relevant sections of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and found that the only reason for denying the copy requests was that they 'cannot be considered.' The Judge held that this reason was insufficient and ordered the first respondent to re-consider the applications for providing copies of the statements. The Judge also highlighted that an affidavit cannot introduce new reasons not present in the original order, citing legal precedents to support this conclusion.

Furthermore, the Judge directed the first respondent to independently re-consider the appellants' requests without being influenced by the previous judgment's observations. The judgment emphasized the need for the first respondent to evaluate the applications in accordance with the provisions of the Act, considering the current stage of the investigation. The writ appeals were disposed of with directions for the first respondent to process the applications for statement copies and make final decisions, taking into account the ongoing investigation and without being swayed by the previous judgment's observations.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of denial of statement copies during an investigation and the proper application of legal provisions under the Act. It emphasized the importance of providing adequate reasons for decisions and ensuring that re-consideration is done impartially and in line with statutory requirements, irrespective of previous judicial observations.

---