2018 Taxo.online 233

WP(C).No. 39178 of 2017 dated 12.07.2018





Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

Section 67

Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Rule 137

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Justice

Partly in favour of assessee

High Court


Represented by: – 

Petitioner: – Sri.Anil D. Nair, Sri.R.Sreejith, Sri.P.Jinish Paul, Kum.Mekhala M.Benny, Sri.Asish Mohan & Sri.G.Krishnakumar (Mallya) 

Respondent: – Sri. Shamsudheen V.K. 

Order: – 

In the petitioner’s premises, the Sales Tax Department conducted search and seizure, under Rule 137 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the Rules). It seized many documents, besides a pen drive. The Department, it seems, copied on to the pen drive certain electronic records available in the petitioner’s computer system.  

  1. Later, the petitioner applied under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, requesting the authority to provide copies of the documents seized. The Department refused. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. 
  2. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that unless the Department provides copies of all the documents seized, the petitioner cannot proceed any more in the inquiry. The petitioner also seems to have filed an affidavit declaring that it has no other records than those seized. 
  3. In response, the Government Pleader has submitted that, the Department has seized the documents, such as delivery notes, purchase orders, payment vouchers, credit bills, and so on. All these transactions must have, in the first place, been reflected in the ledgers maintained by the petitioner. Unless the petitioner produces those ledgers, the Department cannot part with the seized documents. 
  4. To elaborate, the Department apprehends that once it hands over the copies of the seized documents, the petitioner will fabricate records as if they had existed from the beginning. So the Department refused to provide copies of the documents seized. About the pen drive, the Government Pleader contends that it only contains copies of the documents available in the petitioner’s system. 
  5. Indeed, the Department’s apprehension seems well placed. But the petitioner went on record declaring that it had no other records to produce, except those that had been seized. Because of that declaration that the petitioner has no other records to be produced, the department may give copies of the documents to the petitioner at the petitioner’s expense, except the contents of the pen drive, for the pen drive contains what the petitioner’s system has stored. 

With these observations, I dispose of the Writ Petition. 

Free Trial

Are you looking for the Latest Rules, Notifications, and Case Laws?

Book your 7 days free trial

Book Now