Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

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