2024 (5) TMI 1091 - HC - GST

Direction to release/ provide the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted - cross-examination of witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon in the SCN - opportunity to provide personal hearing to the Petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is apparent from bare perusal of Section 67 (3) of the CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2017 that it is the duty of Respondent to release the non-relied upon documents within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the issuance of the show cause notice - Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, may order for the retention of such books of accounts or documents, for reasons to be recorded in writing and the Central Excise Officer shall intimate to the assessee or such person about such retention. This court is of the considered opinion that, besides the certified copies of relied documents which goes without saying are necessary for filing reply and preparing defence, the petitioner is entitled to receive original copies of non-relied documents so as to enable him to prepare his defence/reply as fair hearing requires that petitioner is given due opportunity to raise all defences which are available to him under the law on the basis of the documents, facts, circumstances and the legal provisions as the petitioner deems appropriate. Right of petitioner to conduct cross-examination of witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon in the SCNs during adjudication proceedings - HELD THAT - This court is of the considered opinion that right of fair hearing and personal hearing requires that the petitioner be given right to cross examine witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon in the show cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022 and it is expected from the adjudicating authority that the said right to cross-examine would be afforded to the petitioner at appropriate stage of proceedings, as principles of natural justice are required to be adhered to while conducting adjudication proceedings. It is deemed appropriate to direct the Respondents to handover all the original documents to petitioner which have been seized by them and not relied on by Respondents while issuing Show Cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022, so that the petitioner is enabled in submitting his reply - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issues of releasing original documents seized during searches, providing opportunity for reply, cross-examining witnesses, and ensuring fair adjudication proceedings.

Release of Original Documents:
The petitioner sought the release of original documents seized by the Respondent for preparing a defense against show cause notices. The court referred to Section 67(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2017, emphasizing the duty to return non-relied documents within 30 days. Citing the case of Methodex Systems Ltd. Vs Union of India, the court held that the petitioner is entitled to receive original non-relied documents to prepare a fair defense.

Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The petitioner requested the right to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence was relied upon in the show cause notices. The court highlighted the importance of fair hearing and principles of natural justice, citing Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise. It emphasized that the petitioner should be given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the appropriate stage of proceedings.

Judgment:
The court allowed the petition, directing the Respondents to hand over all original seized documents not relied upon in the show cause notices. The petitioner was granted 30 days to submit a reply, and the Respondents were instructed to adjudicate the case after receiving the reply. The petitioner was given the right to cross-examine witnesses during adjudication proceedings, with the liberty to move appropriate applications. The court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and no costs were awarded.