Kohinoor Floors PVT.LTD. vs. State Tax Officer - Kerala High Court, 12 July 2018

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 39178 of 2017 PETITIONER: KOHINOOR FLOORS PVT.LTD., 3/263, A.N.H.BYEPASS, KANNADIKADU, NEAR VYTILLA, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SRI.P.JINISH PAUL KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY SRI.ASISH MOHAN SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR (MALLYA) RESPONDENT(S): 1. STATE TAX OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE SQUAD NO.V, ERNAKULAM-682030. 2. STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM-682030. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAMSUDHEEN V.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PBS WP(C).No. 39178 of 2017 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03/11/2017 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06/11/2017 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/11/2017 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/11/2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY NOTICE U/S.122 DATED 07/11/2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 07/11/2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/11/2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE PBS 23/7/2018 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. ========================= W.P.(C) No.39178 of 2017 ========================= Dated this the 12th day of July 2018

JUDGMENT 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE