Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd VS The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise

The petitioner, acting as an Assessee under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), has been subject to scrutiny by the respondent authorities since the inception of the CGST Act on July 1, 2017. The Act mandates the assessment of turnover from sales and services. The petitioner has diligently complied with this requirement by filing regular monthly returns, a fact undisputed by both parties.

However, the situation changed when the respondent authorities initiated an investigation into the petitioner’s affairs, commencing on October 15, 2018, and continuing on subsequent dates. During these investigations, the authorities conducted searches on the petitioner’s premises, resulting in the seizure of numerous documents and records. Additionally, the petitioner was requested to provide various records, which they duly furnished in response to letters dated November 17, 2018, and November 22, 2018.

The petitioner, under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), is subject to assessment of turnover from sales and services since the act’s implementation on July 1, 2017. The petitioner has consistently filed regular monthly returns, a fact that is undisputed.

However, an investigation was launched by the respondent authorities at the petitioner’s premises starting from October 15, 2018, and spanning over several subsequent dates. During this investigation, a substantial volume of documents and records were seized. Additionally, the petitioner was requested to provide various records, which they duly submitted through letters dated November 17, 2018, and November 22, 2018.

In the letter dated November 22, 2018, addressed by the petitioner to the first respondent and acknowledged by them on the same date, details regarding the additional documents and records supplied by the petitioner were outlined. This included:

(i) 61 documents submitted, with 56 provided in hard copy.

(ii) A total of 2,935 pages handed over.

(iii) 34 registers were submitted.

This indicates the petitioner’s compliance and cooperation with the investigation, supplying substantial documentation as requested by the authorities.

part of the investigation proceedings. However, the respondent authorities denied the petitioner’s request for copies of the statements recorded during the investigation. This denial prompted the petitioner to approach the court seeking relief.

The petitioner, being an Assessee under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, has been complying with the statutory requirements by filing regular monthly returns, which have not been disputed. Despite this, an investigation was initiated by the respondent authorities at the petitioner’s premises, starting from October 15, 2018, and continuing on various subsequent dates. During this investigation, voluminous documents and records were seized, and the petitioner was asked to furnish various records, which they duly complied with through letters dated November 17, 2018, and November 22, 2018.

In a letter dated November 22, 2018, addressed by the petitioner to the first respondent and acknowledged by the first respondent on the same date, details of additional documents and records supplied by the petitioner were mentioned, including the number of documents, pages, and registers submitted. Despite the ongoing investigation process, the petitioner sought copies of the statements recorded from them as part of the investigation proceedings. However, the respondent authorities denied the petitioner’s request for copies of the statements, leading the petitioner to seek legal recourse.

The petitioner, aggrieved by the denial of their request for copies of the statements recorded during the investigation, approached the court for relief. The petitioner argued that they have been fully cooperative with the investigation process, as evidenced by their timely submission of documents and records. They contended that access to the statements recorded from them is essential for them to understand the allegations against them and to effectively respond to the investigation. The petitioner asserted that denying them access to these statements violates their rights and hampers their ability to defend themselves adequately.

In response, the respondent authorities defended their decision to withhold copies of the statements, citing procedural rules and confidentiality concerns. They argued that disclosing the statements at this stage of the investigation could compromise the integrity of the investigation and prejudice the interests of the revenue. The respondent authorities maintained that the petitioner’s rights have not been violated and that they have provided ample opportunity for the petitioner to present their case during the investigation.

The court deliberated on the arguments presented by both parties and considered relevant provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. It acknowledged the importance of access to information for the petitioner to effectively participate in the investigation process and defend themselves against any allegations. The court also recognized the need to balance the petitioner’s right to information with the procedural requirements of the investigation.

After careful consideration, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondent authorities to provide copies of the statements recorded from the petitioner during the investigation. The court emphasized the principle of natural justice and the importance of transparency in legal proceedings. It held that denying the petitioner access to crucial information would impede their ability to defend themselves and would be contrary to the principles of fairness and due process.

In conclusion, the court’s decision to grant the petitioner access to copies of the statements recorded during the investigation reaffirms the principles of transparency, fairness, and natural justice. It ensures that the petitioner is afforded a full and fair opportunity to defend themselves against any allegations and participate effectively in the legal process.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: