Competent authority did not cross its jurisdictional purview if it had reasonable apprehension in mind :Madhya Pradesh HC
Forum: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Petitioner-firm is engaged in the trading of food grains and sugar. A search was conducted by officers of the official Respondents which led to seizure of certain material documents.The Petitioner contended that the Respondent’s denial to provide copies of seized documents/their extracts amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend as statutorily provided in Sec. 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Hon’ble HC ruled that due and sufficient opportunity was afforded to Petitioner to produce the remaining relevant documents which had not been recovered during search. The Respondents had reasonable apprehension in the mind that supply of copies/extracts of seized documents can lead to adversely affecting the investigation. It was held that discretion available to the competent authority u/S. 67(5) of the CGST Act had been reasonably exercised while refusing to accede to the request for supply of copies/extracts of seized documents. It cannot be said that the competent authority has travelled beyond it’s jurisdictional purviews prescribed by law .Therefore in the absence of jurisdictional error in the order impugned, no interference is called for, especially in the face of unavailed alternative statutory remedy of appeal.
Vox Analytica GST
Would you like to subscribe to GST Updates by Riverus? Stay clued in on the latest notifications, circulars, other legislation information and case laws as soon as they are available.