Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE No. 108 ON RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE BEFORE SCN REPLY

GST UPDATE No. 108 ON RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE BEFORE SCN REPLY
It is a settled principle of law that assessee has the right to test the veracity of evidences used against him including the statements relied upon in the show cause notice. However, what is important is the time of exercising the said right by the assessee. The assessee has right to cross-examine the witness or persons whose statements are being used in the proceedings initiated against him. However, the question arises is whether the assessee can seek cross examination of the persons even prior to filing reply to the show cause notice issued to them. This issue was recently examined in detail by the hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PRAKASH RAGHUNATH AUTADE VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA &B ANOTHER [WRIT PETITION NO. 5753 OF 2021]. The analysis of this decision is the subject matter of discussion of our present update. The petitioner contended that the right to cross examine should be provided beforehand and relied upon the decision given by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of G-TECH INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA reported as [2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 (P & H)] wherein the provisions of section 9D were analyzed and the request of cross examination was accepted. The counsel for the department submitted that the request for crossexamination of the witness was premature as the petitioner had not even filed reply to the show cause notice. It was held that the request for crossexamination of the witness would be examined after the petitioner files his reply, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. Reliance was placed on the decision given by the hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of KANPUR CIGARETTES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2016 (344) E.L.T. 82 (ALL.)] and COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I VERSUS PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD. [2010 (260) E.L.T. 514 (ALL.)]. The hon’ble Bombay High Court conceded with the view taken by Allahabad High Court as cited by revenue department wherein it was held that opportunity for cross examination can be given only after reply has been filed and the adjudicating authority seeks to place reliance on the statements as evidence. It was held that show cause notice is only a step in the process of adjudication and there is no adjudication at the stage of show cause notice. The show cause notice itself is not an order of assessment and so the assessee being entitled to cross examination, even before adjudication has commenced would not arise. It was held that the exercise of cross examination commences only after the proceedings for adjudication have commenced and not available before the reply to show cause notice has been filed. Therefore, petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice and for adjudication of the case as per procedure prescribed in law after providing reasonable opportunity to cross examine witness if his statement is found as relevant and is relied upon during the course of adjudication. There are numerous favourable decisions rendered by the courts regarding allowing the assessee to cross examine the witnesses but it has been largely opined by various High Courts that this exercise of cross examination is available only after submission of reply and after adjudication of the show cause notice when the statements are considered as significantly relevant by the adjudicating authority. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of MULCHAND M. ZAVERI V/S UNION OF INDIA wherein it was held that stand of petitioner to allow cross examination before filing reply of Show Cause Notice, cannot be accepted. Thus, it is crystal clear that the assessee cannot demand his right of cross examination before replying to show cause notice. He can demand his right while replying to the said notice or after adjudication of the case because every statement recorded during the preliminary stage of investigation may not be found to be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com