Case Law Details
Jalpaiguri Woodcraft & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
In Jalpaiguri Woodcraft & Anr. vs State of West Bengal & Ors., the Calcutta High Court considered a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017. The notice arose from search and seizure proceedings conducted under Section 67 of the Act.
The petitioners argued that although Section 67(5) entitles them to obtain copies or extracts of seized documents, they were only provided with a seizure memo and not the underlying records. Since the show cause notice relied on such seized materials, the petitioners contended that they were entitled to access these documents, particularly given that the seizure took place on December 20, 2022.
The GST authorities opposed the petition, stating that the petitioners had failed to cooperate with the proceedings despite repeated summons. It was argued that the lack of document access was attributable to the petitioners’ own conduct.
The Court noted that the show cause notice had been issued nearly three years after the search and seizure and relied on the seized documents to establish the case. In such circumstances, the Court held that the petitioners are entitled to inspection and/or extracts of all records relied upon by the authorities. It further clarified that if specific records—particularly accounting data such as Excel or Tally files from the petitioners’ computer—are relied upon, copies of those must be provided.
The Court did not examine other issues raised in the petition. It directed that the authorities must provide the relevant documents within 10 days and allow the petitioners 15 days thereafter to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioners must also be granted a personal hearing before any decision is taken.
Additionally, the time for completion of proceedings was extended by 120 days. The Court clarified that its order does not affect the petitioners’ rights under Section 67(5) or other provisions of the Act.
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for quashing of the show cause notice dated 20th February, 2026 issued under Section 74(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act).
2. Mr. Majumdar, learned Advocate representing the petitioners, at this stage, by drawing attention of this Court to the show cause notice would submit that the aforesaid show cause notice has been issued in furtherance to a search and seizure proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 67 of the said Act. According to him, though the provisions of Section 67(5) of the said Act itself entitles the petitioners to obtain copies and/or extracts of the documents so seized, in the petitioner’s case, apart from the seizure memo, no other document has been provided. He would submit that since the respondents would rely on the seized records to establish the case against the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to copies and/or inspection of the records especially when the seizure had been effected on 20th December, 2022. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the seizure order issued in form GST INS-02, appearing at page 28 of the writ petition.
3. Ms.Sarkar, learned Advocate representing the GST authorities, would submit that despite repeated summons, the petitioners did not cooperate and participate in the proceedings. If the petitioners have failed to turn up, the respondents cannot be made responsible for not making over copies to the petitioners. Now, when the show cause has been issued, the petitioners have approached this Court. The conduct of the petitioners is extremely bad, disentitling them from any order.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that now a show cause notice has been issued after three years from the date of search and seizure, by relying on the documents which form part of the search and seizure, to establish the case made out against the petitioners in the show cause, I am of the view that the petitioners are at least entitled to inspection and/or extracts of all the records relied on, if not the copies thereof.
5. It is made clear that if the petitioners insist for any particular record especially the accounting records relied on by the respondents from the petitioners’ computer hard drive, like the excel and tally data, copies thereof must be supplied. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not gone into the other issues as raised by the petitioners.
6. Having regard to the above, the time to complete the proceedings from this date stands extended by a period of 120 days.
7. It is also expected that the concerned respondent shall make available the documents which they wish to rely within a period of 10 days from date and permit the petitioners to respond to the show cause notice by a further period of 15 days therefrom. Once the response is filed, the petitioners shall be entitled to a personal hearing before a decision is made in this regard.
8. This order shall not stand in the way of the petitioners from applying under the provisions of section 67(5) of the said Act. This order shall not impinge upon any other the rights of the petitioners for enforcing the other provisions of the said Act.
9. The writ petition stands disposed of.
Author Bio
