2023 (3) TMI 1558 - HC - GST

Non-compliance with the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court - failure to provide the duly endorsed copies of the documents seized vide panchnama - HELD THAT - The Petitioner(s) does not dispute that the directions issued by the Division Bench vide in M/S ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL TRADING PVT. LTD. MS BLUE STAR INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD. MS SUNFLAME TRADING PVT LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL GST COMISSIONERATE DELHI SOUTH ANR. 2022 (11) TMI 1540 - DELHI HIGH COURT with respect to cloning of data from the digital devices which were seized during the searches dated 17.09.2020 and 24.11.2020 have been completed and handed over to the Petitioner(s) herein. The Respondent has placed on record its stand with respect to the circumstances in which it has been unable to furnish the documents seized vide panchnama dated 17.09.2019. The Respondent has stated that the said file is untraceable and the Respondent has initiated steps for tracing the said file. In these circumstances this Court is of the opinion that there is no wilful disobedience by the Respondents of the directions issue vide order dated 22.11.2022. Petition dismissed.

Summary

In the case before the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, the Petitioners alleged non-compliance by the Respondent with a prior Division Bench order dated 22.11.2022. The Petitioners claimed that the Respondent failed to provide endorsed copies of documents seized via a panchnama dated 17.09.2019, contrary to commitments made before the Division Bench.

The Respondent, through counsel, acknowledged the issue in a reply dated 25.02.2023, stating that the relevant file is untraceable. Efforts to locate the file included issuing a TRACER on 14.10.2022, as the officer responsible for the panchnama had passed away during the COVID-19 pandemic without transferring the file to a successor. The Respondent argued there was no "wilful disobedience" and requested the petition's dismissal based on these circumstances.

The Petitioners countered that the Respondent should have informed the Division Bench of the TRACER and sought modification of the order, alleging contempt due to non-disclosure.

The Court, after considering submissions, noted that the Petitioners did not dispute the completion of data cloning from digital devices seized on 17.09.2020 and 24.11.2020. Given the Respondent's explanation and efforts to locate the file, the Court found no wilful disobedience of the 22.11.2022 order and dismissed the petitions.