https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398941 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. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398941 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. Case-Laws GST Thu, 17 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398941