Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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