Case Law Details
Agarwal Oil Mill Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether supply of copies of documents which is not seized by the department in search is allowed to produced as evidence for reduction of tax liability?
High Court states that from order sheets as detailed and explained above, ever since conduction of search till passing of the impugned order, it is evident that due and sufficient opportunity was afforded to petitioner to produce the remaining relevant documents which had not been recovered during search. The explanation given by petitioner for not producing documents sought by Revenue was that the same are maintained in soft copy in computer while in regard to other documents sought by the Revenue, there was no explanation. This obviously gives an impression that the remaining relevant documents which could not be seized during search are still in possession of petitioner and therefore supply of copies or extracts of the seized documents to petitioner can enable the petitioner to carry out interpolations for reducing or depressing tax liability and with corresponding loss to the Revenue. The formation of this opinion is founded upon reasonable apprehension in the mind of the competent authority that supply of copies/extracts of seized documents can lead to adversely affecting the investigation. The discretion available to the competent authority u/S 67(5) of the CGST Act while withholding supply of copies/extracts of documents seized appears to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority for reasons which prima facie appear to be cogent and convincing. Once it is 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 and 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. Consequently, this court does not find any substance in petition which accordingly stand dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Shri Gaurav Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners in all the petitions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
