Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2313

Non supply of relied upon documents amounts to violation of natural justice.

Case:- UNION OF INDIA VERSUS LAMPO CONPUTERS (P) LTD.

Citation:- 2014 (305) E.L.T. 215 (Kar.)

Brief facts:- This Central Excise Appeal, filed by the Union of India, is against the order dated 4th May 2005 passed in Appeal Nos. E/876.877/2003, E/271/2004 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore ( for short 'CESTAT') 12005 (192) E.L.T. 698 (Tn.-Bang.)).
The CESTAT did not consider merits of the case and disposed it of on technical grounds. The relevant observations in the concluding paragraph of the order of the CESTAT read thus :
"We have heard the rival contentions. The CEGAT in its Final Order dated 12-2-2002 remanded the case to the Original authority on the ground that the order suffers from denial of principles of 'Natural Justice'. There was a specific direction to supply the documents relied upon by the Department in the show cause notice.”

Appellant’s contention:- Learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the outset submitted that the CESTAT ought to have examined the effect of non-supply of certain documents on merits of the case. In other words, he submitted that the documents which were not furnished to the respondent-assessee did not have any effect on merits of the case, which the CESTAT ought to have considered and examined while dealing with the appeal.
 
Respondent’s contention:- On the other hand Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee submitted that the documents which were referred to and relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the show cause notice were not only not furnished to the respondent, but they were having bearing on merits of the case. He submitted that in the absence of those documents respondent-assessee could not and did not contest the matter and defend himself effectively. He further submitted that the documents, which were not furnished despite, the direction issued vide order dated 12-2-2002, have been relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority for passing the order confirming the demand and imposing penalty.
 
Reasoning of judgment:- On going through the de novo order, the Hon’ble judge of the High Court find that the directions of CEGAT have not been complied with, presumably due to the fact that the said documents have been lost by the Department. Under these circumstances, they cannot accept the Adjudicating authority's observations that these documents are not relied upon. Once the show cause notice mentions that certain documents are relied on, the Department should take utmost care to preserve them and furnish copy of the documents to the party. Non-furnishing of relied on documents is clearly a violation of denial of principles of Natural Justice. The de novo order also suffers from the vice of denial of principles of 'Natural Justice' as the original order. Under these circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, they are compelled to set aside the impugned order. In view of these findings, the appeal of the Revenue against the impugned order on the ground that no separate penalty under Rule I73Q has been imposed by the Adjudicating authority becomes in-fructuous. Hence, they allow the party's appeals and reject the Revenue's appeal. These three appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Since the CESTAT did not go into merits of the case and set aside the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, without examining the effect of non-supply of the documents or without examining whether the said documents have any effect on merits of the case. When they so expressed, in the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the parties have fairly agreed for the following order:
(a) The order dated 4th May, 2005 passed by the CESTAT impugned in the present appeal is set aside and the Appeal Nos. E/876, 877/2003 and E/271 /2004 are restored to file.
(b) The CESTAT shall consider the appeals on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
(c) The CESTAT while considering the merits of the case shall examine the effect of non-supply of the documents relied upon by the Department in the show cause notice. The CESTAT shall also consider whether those documents have any bearing on the outcome of the case.
It is made clear that they are not making any observations on merits of the case and the CESTAT shall consider the case on merits in accordance with law within the stipulated time. They also added that it was needless to mention that the Tribunal should grant an opportunity of being heard to both sides before passing the final order.
Decision:- Appeal allowed.

Comment:- The essence of this case is that whenever department relies upon certain documents, it is the duty of the revenue department to take appropriate steps to preserve such documents and provide to the assessee. An order that is passed without providing the assessee with the relied upon documents is against the principles of natural justice.

Prepared by:- Kushal Shah

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