GST Officer Must Investigate Without Harassment While Taxpayer Must Cooperate with Legitimate Inquiry into Ineligible Input Tax Credit

The HC disposed of a petition alleging harassment during GST investigations. Petitioners claimed the GST officer compelled payment, caused lengthy detentions, and repeatedly summoned them. The respondent countered that petitioner admitted liability for ineligible Input Tax Credit and was not cooperating with lawful proceedings. The court directed the second petitioner to cooperate with the investigation while allowing assistance from an accountant. The court ordered the GST officer to conduct the investigation without harassment while acknowledging the legitimacy of the inquiry into fake GST claims.

---

---

Issues:
Harassment during GST investigation

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking relief from harassment during an enquiry related to a GST case involving their trading company. The petitioners claimed that the respondent, a GST officer, made the 1st petitioner stay for long hours, compelled him to pay a significant amount of GST tax, and repeatedly summoned him. The petitioners also alleged that the respondent was harassing them and trying to adopt aggressive methods, causing distress to the 2nd petitioner, who is a lady. The petitioners sought a direction to stop the harassment.

The respondent, in their counter, stated that the 1st petitioner admitted to the liability of availing ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) and promised to make the payments. The respondent denied the allegations of harassment, stating that the 1st petitioner was never asked to appear on certain dates mentioned by the petitioners. The respondent highlighted that the investigation was being conducted as per the provisions of the GST Act and that the petitioners were not cooperating, leading to the filing of the petition to obstruct the investigation.

The Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent reiterated that the investigation was being carried out lawfully, and the petitioners were obligated to cooperate as per the GST Act. The prosecutor argued that the petitioners had benefited from fake invoices and needed to participate in the investigation process. The respondent denied the allegations of harassment and claimed that the petitioners were attempting to impede the investigation.

After considering the arguments, the court found that the respondent had valid reasons to summon the 2nd petitioner for enquiry regarding fake GST claims. The court directed the 2nd petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and permitted her to be assisted by an Accountant if necessary. The court also ordered the respondent not to harass the petitioners during the investigation process. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with the specified directions to ensure a fair and lawful investigation process.

---