Manish Grover vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner's primary prayer was for a mandamus directing the respondents to supply copies of the complete relied-upon record. The respondent-department, through its counsel, acceded to this request, stating that the hard copies would be supplied to the petitioner upon bearing the costs. The Court also observed that the respondent had indicated that a show cause notice/demand notice had already been issued to the petitioner. Since the limited prayer for the supply of documents was met by the department's undertaking, the Court found that nothing further survived for adjudication in the present petition. Therefore, the petition was disposed of on the basis that the issue raised by the petitioner had been resolved by the department's concession.

Facts

The petitioner, a partner in M/s Divya Upchar Sansthan and Director of M/s Jeena Seekho Lifecare Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent-department to supply copies of complete relied-upon records. These records were taken into possession during a search conducted on April 17, 2018, at the offices of the two concerns in Delhi, Mumbai, and Chandigarh. The petitioner argued that while inspection was allowed, hard copies or digital copies were not provided, making it practically impossible to analyze the voluminous records within a few hours. The petitioner sought these documents to verify and quantify tax liability, aiming to pay a lesser penalty under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondent-department, through its counsel, agreed to supply the hard copies upon the petitioner bearing the costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-department to supply complete copies of the relied-upon documents seized during the search, in light of Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that access to the complete relied-upon record is essential for them to accurately verify and quantify their tax liability. They contended that the voluminous nature of the seized documents made it impractical to analyze them during the limited inspection period. Obtaining these documents would enable them to potentially pay a lesser penalty under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, by demonstrating a correct quantification of their tax dues. They relied on the principle that a party should have access to evidence against them to present their case effectively. Respondent's contention: The respondent-department, through its counsel, stated that in view of the petitioner's willingness to bear the costs of the hard copies, the documents would be supplied. They also noted that a show cause notice/demand notice had already been issued to the petitioner.