2024 (7) TMI 235 - HC - GST

Validity of adjudication notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - allegations of fraud - scope of judicial review. HELD THAT - The parties may never be required to contest the factual disputes, within the limited scope of judicial review. Insofar as no inherent lack of jurisdiction shown to exist, interference claimed at this stage, is declined. The proceedings disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to adjudication notice under Section 74 of CGST Act, 2017; Allegations of fraud; Disputed facts regarding registration and documents; Judicial review of fact disputes; Right to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence.

In the judgment delivered by the High Court, the challenge was raised against the adjudication notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner denied allegations of fraud, arguing that their firm's registration under the previous law had been surrendered, and they never obtained registration under the CGST Act. The petitioner disputed the relevance of bank statements and other documents relied upon by the revenue. The court acknowledged the existence of fact disputes, emphasizing that such disputes may not require adjudication within the limited scope of judicial review unless there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction. As no such lack of jurisdiction was demonstrated, the court declined to interfere at that stage.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the petitioner should have the opportunity to confront all documents and oral statements relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner should also be allowed to cross-examine witnesses whose statements could lead to adverse inferences against them. Additionally, the petitioner was granted the right to present evidence in their defense. The judgment concluded by disposing of the proceedings with these observations, ensuring the petitioner's rights to a fair hearing and defense were upheld throughout the process.