Judgment
W.P.(C) No.2736/25 1 2025:KER:29832 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 2736 OF 2025 PETITIONER:
RAHUL R BHAT AGED 34 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.UDUPI GARDEN RESTAURANT, ESHA VASYAM, BEACH ROAD, NEAR GEETHA TALKIES, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121 BY ADVS.
SRI.K.KRISHNA SRI.ACHYUTH MENON SRI.NIRMAL KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS:
1 P.V. RETHNAKARAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE UNIT, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD, PIN - 671315 2 COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT OF STATE GST, TAX TOWERS, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002 3 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER INTELLIGENCE AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE GST, JAWAHAR NAGAR, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
W.P.(C) No.2736/25 2 2025:KER:29832 TAXES DEPT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY DR.THUSHARA JAMES, SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2736/25 3 2025:KER:29832 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2736 of 2025 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks the transfer of the proceedings initiated pursuant to an inspection conducted by the first respondent in the petitioner's premises on 24.04.2024, to another officer. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 complaints.
2. Petitioner is running a restaurant by the name 'Udupi Garden' at Kasaragod. On 24.04.2024, first respondent, who is the Intelligence Officer of the State Goods and Services Tax Department, conducted a search in the premises of the petitioner under section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act'). Petitioner alleges that the search was done without proper authorisation and that the officer had indulged in several unethical practices. It was alleged that the staff of the petitioner were subjected to sexual harassment, restricted them from accessing restrooms, and even abused with casteist remarks. It was also alleged that the officers had damaged restaurant properties, instructed the staff to turn off the surveillance cameras and even forcibly shut down the DVR system. Subsequently, petitioner is alleged to have been forcefully taken
W.P.(C) No.2736/25 4 2025:KER:29832 into the vehicle of the first respondent and confined in a dark room for over an hour and coerced into signing certain documents under the threat of arrest and court proceedings. Petitioner also alleges that the proceedings presently carried on by the first respondent is biased and hence complaints were filed before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, State GST Department as per Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 letters. Since no response has been received for the complaints, petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition.
3. A memo has been filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, producing a copy of the communication issued by the second respondent to the petitioner dated 12.12.2024 intimating him that the inquiry pursuant to his complaint dated Nil revealed that the allegations were false and no materials could be recovered that could implicate the first respondent. The said communication is stated to have been despatched to the petitioner on 12.12.2024 as well.
4. I have heard Smt. Krishna K., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that petitioner's establishment was under surveillance for a few months. After realising that there were attempts to evade GST, a search was conducted on 24.04.2024. It was also pointed out that, subsequent to the search, several implicating materials were recovered and that investigation is still going on. It was further submitted that it was at that juncture that the petitioner started resorting to
W.P.(C) No.2736/25 5 2025:KER:29832 raise complaints against the investigating officer. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the attempt of the petitioner is only to scuttle the investigation and other proceedings being initiated against him under the CGST Act.
6. On a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the documents produced, it is noticed that the complaint of the petitioner was inquired into and pursuant to the report dated 18.11.2024, the second respondent came to the conclusion that no incriminating materials could be identified against the first respondent.
7. Transfer of investigation from one officer to another is not a normal course to be adopted. Such a transfer ought not to be directed by this Court, unless there are exceptional circumstances which are pleaded and proved.
The decisions in Agarwal Foundries (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (2020) 121 taxmann.com 134 and P.V.Ramana Reddy v. Union of India (2019) 104 taxmann.com 407, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to canvas for the proposition that investigation must be shifted to another officer are peculiar to the facts of the case. In fact, in the decision in Agarwal Foundries's case (supra), it has been observed that normally the plea for transfer of investigation will not even be entertained.
8. If pleas for transfer of investigation from one officer to another are entertained for the mere asking, it will cause serious prejudice to the entire process of investigation and also the scheme of the statute. Since the statute
W.P.(C) No.2736/25 6 2025:KER:29832 does not provide for a provision, enabling such transfer of investigation, only the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be exercised for such a transfer. In the absence of any specific material to transfer the investigation, interference with the process of investigation should be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances. I am fortified in the above view from the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14144 of 2020 as well.
9. Apart from the above, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the second respondent was inquired into and it was revealed that the complaint is baseless. No materials have been placed by the petitioner to reach a contrary conclusion also.
In the result, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE vps
W.P.(C) No.2736/25 7 2025:KER:29832 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2736/2025 PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 18-05-2024 Exhibit P2 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. NIL Exhibit P3 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DTD. 13-05-2024 Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 07-06-2024 Exhibit P5 COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 02-11-2024 Exhibit P6 COPY OF RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 04-12-2024 Exhibit P7 COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD. 04-10-2024