2018 (7) TMI 1744 - HC - GST

Return of seized documents to petitioner - search and seizure under GST - case of petitioner is that unless the Department provides copies of all the documents seized, the petitioner cannot proceed any more in the inquiry - 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 - Held that - 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 - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of documents and pen drive by Sales Tax Department under Rule 137 of Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
2. Petitioner's application under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act to obtain copies of seized documents.
3. Department's refusal to provide copies of seized documents.
4. Petitioner's claim of having no other records besides seized documents.
5. Government Pleader's argument against providing copies due to fear of fabrication by petitioner.

The judgment by the High Court of Kerala pertains to a case where the Sales Tax Department conducted a search and seizure at the petitioner's premises under Rule 137 of the Kerala Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, seizing various documents and a pen drive containing electronic records from the petitioner's computer system. Subsequently, the petitioner applied under Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act to request copies of the seized documents, which was denied by the Department. The petitioner contended that without access to the seized documents, they could not proceed with the inquiry and declared in an affidavit that no other records existed beyond those seized.

In response, the Government Pleader argued that the seized documents, including delivery notes, purchase orders, payment vouchers, and credit bills, should have been reflected in the petitioner's ledgers. The Department expressed concerns that providing copies of the seized documents might enable the petitioner to manipulate records retroactively. The Government Pleader also mentioned that the pen drive only contained copies of documents already present in the petitioner's system.

The Court acknowledged the Department's apprehension but noted the petitioner's declaration of having no additional records to produce beyond those seized. Consequently, the Court directed that the Department could provide copies of the seized documents to the petitioner at their expense, excluding the contents of the pen drive, as it replicated the petitioner's existing system data. The Writ Petition was disposed of based on these considerations.