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

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