Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

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