Haryana Excell Forging vs. Commissioner CGST & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to receive copies of the seized documents. The reasoning was based on the implicit understanding that such documents are necessary for the petitioner to understand the basis of any potential action by the revenue and to prepare their response. The Court did not delve into specific legal provisions but rather addressed the procedural grievance. The ratio decidendi is that revenue authorities should facilitate the provision of seized documents to the assessee to uphold principles of natural justice and ensure a fair process. The operative direction was to facilitate the supply of photocopies of the seized documents to the petitioner at their cost within three working days from the date of the petitioner furnishing a list of required documents to the Superintendent of CGST, Anti-Evasion, Group-IV, on October 5th, 2020.

Facts

The petitioner, Haryana Excell Forging, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the respondents, the Commissioner, CGST & Ors., to supply copies of seized documents. The petition was listed urgently due to the urgency expressed by the petitioner. The respondents, represented by senior standing counsel, accepted notice and stated that photocopies of the seized documents would be supplied by the Superintendent of CGST, Anti-Evasion, Group-IV. The Court directed the petitioner to meet the Superintendent on October 5th, 2020, at 12:00 Noon, furnish a list of required documents, and receive photocopies at the petitioner's cost within three working days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the supply of copies of seized documents under the relevant provisions of the GST law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to receive copies of the documents seized by the revenue authorities to enable them to prepare their defense and respond to any potential proceedings. They relied on the general principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not contest the petitioner's right to receive copies of the seized documents. Their submission was limited to the procedural aspect of how and when these copies would be provided, indicating their willingness to comply with the request.