2020 (9) TMI 1060 - HC - GST

Territorial Jurisdiction - transfer of the case - It is the prayer of the petitioners that the investigation with respect to them may be carried out by an officer at Kollam especially due to the COVID situation as also due to the voluminous documents which would have to be transported to Ernakulam - HELD THAT - The officer at Ernakulam has been authorised to look into the matter specifically on the grounds stated in the statement. We do not think that the location of the lawyer can at all be a reason for the department to carry out proceedings in a particular place. There are no reason to interfere with the refusal of the Single Judge, to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226. For production of books of accounts a month's time shall be granted from today which can also be in the digital mode. As far as the supply of copies of documents seized and intended to be relied on, the learned Single Judge has made sufficient safety measures which though not challenged, we reiterate and re-affirm. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Jurisdictional authority for investigation into the affairs of a group concern in the jewellery business.
2. Request for the transfer of investigation proceedings to an officer at a different location due to COVID-19 and logistical reasons.
3. Discretion of the court under Article 226 regarding the transfer of proceedings.
4. Assessee's choice in determining which officer should continue the proceedings.
5. Feasibility of an officer holding sittings at a different location and the associated expenses.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an investigation initiated into a group concern named "Chungath" engaged in the jewellery business. The State Tax Officer at Ernakulam was assigned to continue the proceedings following raids conducted at various business premises of the group. The petitioners, having separate registrations, sought the investigation to be conducted by an officer at Kollam due to the COVID situation and the volume of documents to be transported. The court considered the locations of the businesses and the maintenance of books of accounts in the decision-making process.

2. The Single Judge's decision was based on the respondent's statement highlighting discrepancies in stock and business volume at the Ernakulam branch. The Department argued that the books of accounts should be maintained at the business premises as per the relevant tax laws. The refusal to transfer the proceedings was upheld, emphasizing the importance of the investigating officer's authorization and the location of the lawyer not being a determining factor for the investigation venue.

3. The appellants' argument, reiterated before the court, did not sway the decision as the officer at Ernakulam was deemed suitable to handle the investigation based on the grounds provided in the statement. The court emphasized that the Department has the authority to decide which officer should continue the proceedings, and the assessee does not have the prerogative to choose the investigating officer.

4. The feasibility of the officer holding sittings at Kollam, as suggested by the appellants, was dismissed due to practical constraints such as the officer's existing workload, the need for staff assistance, and the impracticality of shifting the office location. Ultimately, the court found no valid reason to interfere with the Single Judge's decision and granted a month's time for the production of books of accounts in digital format, maintaining the safety measures for document copies as directed by the Single Judge.

5. Consequently, the Writ Appeals were dismissed in limine, affirming the refusal to transfer the investigation proceedings and upholding the authority of the Department in determining the investigating officer and venue for the proceedings.