Deepak Kumar And Another vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners sought copies of documents seized during a search and relied upon materials from third-party premises. An adjudication order has been passed, and a statutory appeal is pending.
Held
The Court directed that if the petitioners file a proper application for Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) and statements within two weeks, the respondent shall provide these copies within a further two weeks, ensuring fairness and compliance with natural justice.
Key Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to copies of seized documents and relied upon materials for fairness in proceedings and compliance with natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 67 (5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 2485 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Heard Sri Abhishek Singh holding brief of Sri Pragyanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the writ petition to prayer no. ii. He does not press the writ petition on prayer no.
Prayer no. 2 reads as below :-. "ii Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide copies of all documents seized during the search conducted on 15.05.2023 at the petitioners' premises, as well as any relied upon materials from third-party premises, and to allow inspection thereof, in terms of Section 67 (5) of the GST Act, 2017."
At present, it has been further stated that against the adjudication order dated 01.02.2025, the petitioners have already preferred their statutory appeal. That is pending. Considering the fact that the adjudication proceedings are over, it would serve the interest of justice if the petitioners are supplied copies of Relied Upon Documents ('RUDs' in short) or other evidence including statements etc. that may have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the order dated 01.02.2025. That compliance may be enforced on respondent no. 2 both to ensure fairness in the proceedings as also to enforce due compliance of rules of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Singh, Pragyanshu Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Atul Kumar Shahi, Gaurav Mahajan Deepak Kumar And Another .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
natural justice.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction subject to petitioner filing a proper application before the respondent no. 2 within a period of two weeks from today praying for copies RUDs and statements etc., the said authority shall provide copies of documents to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks.
The writ petition is disposed of. October 28, 2025 Pratima WTAX No. 2485 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.