Kerala High Court: GST Dept. to Reconsider Request Seeking Copies of Witness Statements, Application refused without explanations

Kerala High Court: GST Dept. to Reconsider Request Seeking Copies of Witness Statements, Application refused without explanations

The Kerala High Court ruled that the GST Department must reconsider the request for copies of witness statements since it was refused without providing any explanation.

Gee Yem Agro Mills has requested the transfer of inquiry files to a place of the petitioner's choice and a copy of the statements recorded by respondents in the investigation into non-collection of tax for outward supplies of rice, which were not taken into account by the Procurator General under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Four writs have been filed by taxpayers against whom summonses have been issued relating to an investigation into the supply of goods under the Act. After petitioners were served with the summons to participate in the inquiry, applications were filed asking for the files to be transferred to an officer in a jurisdiction near to the place of business of the petitioners. In addition, a request was made for a copy of statements already given by other persons who were called for questioning.

According to the Proper Officer, the court's request would not be considered, and the case would be investigated now. Currently, the request is for the said file to be transferred to the Indian Bureau of Investigation Unit, Kottayam, and for a copy of the statements already obtained from Sri. Benny Joseph, Manager of the firm M/s. St. Marrys Paddy Processing and Sri. Melvin T. Matthew S/o. Sri. Thomas Mathew, Director of the firm M/s.K.E.Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. cannot be considered."

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that while refusing to consider the petitioners' request, the Proper Officer failed to provide any explanation. Giving a copy of the statements to the officer would have prejudiced the investigation, which the officer had not mentioned. As mentioned earlier, the petitioners' request for copies of the statements already taken by the investigating officer was declined. It is important to distinguish between refusing to consider an application and rejecting it for reasons.

"As a result of the above discussions, this Court is of the view that the Ext.P10 order is liable to be set aside and that the first respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioners' request for a copy of the statements obtained during the investigation and pass a fresh order," the Court noted.