Seized documents copies should be provided so that assessee can file effective responses to GST Notice : High Court

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. – Heard Mr. Agni who appears along with Mr. S. Kane and Mr. K. Kavlekar for the Petitioners in both these petitions. Mr. R. Chodankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for Respondent No. l and Ms. Priyanka Kamat, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in both these petitions.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately with the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the parties state that both these petitions involve identical issue and therefore, can be disposed of by a common judgment and order.

4. The challenge in both these petitions is to the show cause cum demand notices dated 6-4-2023 and 10-4-2023 issued under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the said Act).

5. Ms. Kamat, learned Standing Counsel on instructions states that impugned notices are in fact show cause notices under section 74(1) of the said Act, and in any case, the impugned notices may be treated as show cause notices. Further, on instructions she states that upon receipt of the response from the Petitioners, necessary adjudication would be held and final orders would be passed. Again on instructions she states that until adjudication is complete and final orders are made no coercive steps will be taken to enforce the demand contained in the impugned notices.

6. The above statements made by Ms. P. Kamat are accepted and the Respondents will have to act accordingly. The Petitioners will accordingly be at liberty to file their responses/objections to the impugned notices. All contentions of all parties are left open to be considered and adjudicated in the first instance by the Respondents.

7. Mr. Agni, learned counsel for the Petitioners points out that raids were conducted upon the Petitioners in terms of Section 67 of the said Act, during which all their documents have been attached and seized. He points out that the Petitioners have applied to the Respondents for the release of the documents or at least furnish of copies of such documents in order to enable them to file effective responses to the impugned notices. He however submits that till date neither the documents nor their copies have been supplied to the Petitioners.

8. Mr. Agni refers to Section 67(5) of the said Act which reads as follows:

“67(5). The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (2) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an authorised officer at such place and time as such officer may indicate in this behalf except where making such copies or taking such extracts may, in the opinion of the proper officer, prejudicially affect the investigation.”

9. The Respondents are duty-bound to comply with the requirement of Section 67(5). This Section provides that the person from whose custody any documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an authorised officer at such place and time as such officer may indicate in this behalf except where making such copies or taking such extracts may, in the opinion of the proper officer, prejudicially affect the investigation.

10. Accordingly, we direct the concerned Respondents to dispose of the Petitioners’ representations dated 3-5-2023, 6-6-2023, and 27-6-2023 and further representations as request in terms of Section 67(5) of the said Act. This is because there is prima facie merit in Mr. Agni’s contention that they should have access to such documents for filing an effective reply/response to the impugned notices which are now to be treated as show cause notices.

11. The rule in both the petitions is disposed of with the above directions and observations.

12. There shall be no order for costs.

13. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.