2020 (10) TMI 1002 - HC - GST

Non availability of the documents of sale and purchase in respect of the goods that were found stored on the business premises of the petitioner - Section 35 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Since the issue is very little with regard to the availability of documents pertaining to the goods/ articles stored in the business premises and the genuine reason has been assigned for the same because of the transitional period from old Act to new Act, it would be in the fitness of things and the cause of justice would also get served in the opinion of the Court, if the petitioner is permitted 10 days' time to produce all the records bearing signatures of the designated authority of the Company who is competent to do so, before the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and GST, Gautam Budh Nagar for due verification and report thereof is obtained. It is directed that in case if the requisite documents are produced, as directed herein above, the same will be examined and verified by the competent authority and report duly prepared in respect thereof within a week of submission of records by the petitioner, shall be submitted to this Court by way of supplementary counter affidavit by the next date fixed - Put up this matter on 09.11.2020 in the additional cause list.

Summary

Issues:
Controversy over non-availability of sale and purchase documents for goods stored on business premises, liability under Section 35(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, dispute regarding the location of required documents, transitional period from old Act to new Act affecting document availability.

Analysis:
The judgment by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J., addresses the dispute concerning the absence of sale and purchase documents for goods found on the petitioner's business premises, leading to potential liabilities under Section 35(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to the transition from the old Act to the new Act mandating online processes for tax-related matters, the necessary documents were stored at the company's Head Office. It was contended that the allegation of non-availability of day-to-day records at the business premises was baseless. The petitioner claimed to have already submitted all relevant documents through a rejoinder affidavit, emphasizing their availability at the Head Office.

On the contrary, the respondent's counsel argued that the documents should have been maintained at the business premises, but did not contest the possibility of the documents being held at the Head Office. Acknowledging the unique circumstances of the transitional period and the genuine reasons provided for the unavailability of documents at the business premises, the Court deemed it appropriate for the petitioner to be granted ten days to produce all records bearing the designated authority's signatures from the Head Office. These records were to be presented before the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and GST, Gautam Budh Nagar for verification, with a subsequent report to be submitted to the Court within a week of the petitioner's submission.

In conclusion, the Court directed that if the requisite documents were provided within the stipulated timeframe, they would be verified by the competent authority, and a report would be prepared and submitted to the Court promptly. The case was scheduled for further proceedings on 09.11.2020, allowing for the resolution of the document availability issue and ensuring the due process of justice.