9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out the writ petitioners having been given an opportunity of dealing with the same was in breach of the principles of natural justice and the Commissioner was in gross procedural error. - show cause issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence dated 13th December, 2013 along with the show cause issued under regulation 20 of the above Regulations be disposed of by 30th December, 2014 by giving an adequate opportunity to the writ petitioners to show cause and by way of a reasoned order. - Decided in favour of petitioner. - W.P. No. 153 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2014 - I.P. Mukerji, J. Shri V.K. Purohit, Ms. A. Joyshree and A. Banerjee, for the Petitioner. Shri K. Dey, P.K. Roy and Md. T.M. Siddiqui, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tinue with it. If the suspension is revoked, the Commissioner may or may not take any step for starting proceedings under Section 20 for revoking the licence. In my opinion, even without suspending the licence the Commissioner may start a case under regulation 20. There is no bar if the Commissioner decides to continue the suspension, then I suppose that taking steps under Section 20 is mandatory. The issue whether to suspend the licence or not is like evaluating the prima facie case and passing an interim order. The proceedings may continue with or without the interim order. 5. It has happened in this case. By his final order dated 11th September, 2013 the Commissioner confirmed the suspension of the writ petitioners. A notice under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty was given to them to deal with those statements by cross-examination or otherwise. 10. Mr. Dey, learned advocate supplemented by Mr. Roy for the respondents submitted that if one perused the reply to the show cause notice one would find that the statements had not been denied by the writ petitioners. Therefore, they had admitted those statements. The writ petitioners had not evinced any interest in getting copies of these statements. Neither did they want to cross-examine these three persons making the statements. Therefore, those statements were not sent to the writ petitioners. 11. Thereafter, it was submitted that the final order of 11th September, 2013 was an appealable order. Hence, the alternative remedy provided by law has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orter is correct to the extent of his personal knowledge and not of the information of the company. This hard fact was also stated before the Investigating Officer during interrogation which was not allowed to record but as Sri Jaladhar was the authorized signatory his statement only was recorded, it is also accepted and admitted fact that the said Sri Manoj Baid was bringing the job to us for the last 4 months against consideration but at no point of time he was allowed to fake clearance of any goods of their firm by using our license. 13. It does not matter whether a party expressly asks for document or prays that the maker of the statements should be cross-examined. It is for the adjudicator to comply with the rules of natural justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
