RAJIVE AND COMPANY Vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An investigation was ordered and commenced into the affairs of a group concern going under the Family name of "Chungath" all engaged in jewellery business. The appellants refute the allegation that all concerns are related since different members of a large family are carrying on separate entities. Be that as it may, the State Tax Officer at Ernakulam was entrusted with the continuation of proceedings after raids were conducted in various business premises of the group by State Tax Officers of the Investigation Wing stationed at the respective locations.

(2.) The petitioners, two in number in the three writ petitions have registrations respectively in the name of Rajive & Company and Rajive Paul. C, the second of whom is the Managing Partner of the first. As far as these petitioners are concerned, Rajive and Company has its Head Office at Karunagapally and branch at Thiruvananthapuram and Rajeev Paul C has its Head Office at Kollam and branch at Ernakulam. The entire accounts are handled by the Head Office which is within Kollam District. 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. It is also submitted that two officers stationed at Thrissur are handling another set of cases, again of businesses going under the family name "Chungath".

(3.) We see from the impugned common judgment that the learned Single Judge has specifically referred to the statement filed by the respondent. It is stated that at the time of inspection huge variation of stock of gold jewellery were noticed at the branch in Ernakulam and hence the books of accounts were called for. It is also specifically stated that the major volume of business was found in the branch at Ernakulam. As far as the contention that the books of accounts are maintained at the Head Office, the statement specifically relies on Section 35 of the CGST and KsGST Act, 2017 which provides for maintenance of books of accounts in the business premises itself. It is also stated that a total of 16 places of business falling under eight registrations were inspected. Of which, 11 businesses were located at Ernakulam and Thrissur District coming under the Ernakulam zone of SGST Department. The Department also submits that books of accounts being maintained in a digital format the specific ground raised by the petitioner cannot at all be countenanced. The learned Single Judge noticing these averments made on behalf of the Department declined exercise of discretion under Article 226.