M/S Cmi Limited vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence And Anr

Held

The Court held that for the petitioner to obtain photocopies of the seized documents, they must first make a proper application under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Proper Officer would then take appropriate action based on that application. Regarding the prayer to restrain coercive steps against the summoned Director, the Court found that the investigations were in their initial stages and did not justify granting such a restraint. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to enable the client to take action in accordance with the law. The Court granted this permission. No specific issue was expressly left undecided; rather, the petitioner chose to withdraw the petition.

Facts

M/s CMI Limited, a private limited company registered under the GST regime and engaged in manufacturing and trading cable wires, is the petitioner. The Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence (DGGSI), Gurugram, is the respondent. The DGGSI raided the petitioner's premises in Faridabad and seized documents as part of an investigation into the availment of false input tax credit based on forged or non-existent sale invoices. The petitioner sought two reliefs: a photocopy of the seized documents and a direction restraining the respondents from taking coercive steps against the summoned Director of the petitioner company. The court noted that for obtaining photocopies, the petitioner needed to make a proper application under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. Regarding coercive steps, the court observed that the investigations were at an initial stage and did not warrant such a prayer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a photocopy of the documents seized by the respondent under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that they should be provided with copies of the seized documents. The respondent contended that the petitioner must first make a proper application under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the Proper Officer to take appropriate action. 2. Whether the respondents should be restrained from taking coercive steps against the summoned Director of the petitioner company? The petitioner sought this relief, implying a concern about potential punitive actions. The respondent argued that the investigations were in their initial stages and did not warrant the grant of such a prayer. The court did not explicitly frame these as legal questions but addressed them as prayers made by the petitioner.