Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (10) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... party to present their case effectively. The appellants vide their letter dated 20.10.2021 requested for relied upon documents however, no documents were supplied to them and without giving the documents the hearing was fixed and the impugned order was passed on 29.11.2021. This amounts to denial of opportunity of personal hearing. The adjudicating authority has rejected the request for cross- examination on a flimsy ground whereas Section 138B mandates that if the statements to be admitted as evidence cross-examination of the witnesses is must. Therefore, no discretion is provided under Section 138B for the adjudicating authority to use his whims to allow or to disallow the cross-examination. Therefore, the rejection of cross- examination .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeals. 2. Shri Hardik Modh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, at the outset, submits that the impugned order was passed by the respondent imposing penalty on the appellant without compliance of natural justice. Therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2.1 Learned counsel submits that his preliminary submission is limited to challenge the impugned order on the ground of principle of natural justice. He deserves his right to file the additional written submission in case the matter is heard on merit. On the point of principle of natural justice, he further submits that the documents relied upon in the show cause notice and in the impugned order were not provided to the appellants. The show cause notice was issued .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ta Parmar and Shri Rutungna Trivedi though the data recovered from Ms. Neeta Parmar and statements of both persons were relied upon for the purpose of implicating the petitioner which is in breach of the principle of natural justice. 2.4 He submits that contrary to what has been stated further purpose for rejecting the request for cross-examination, the respondent has relied upon the statements of two persons Ms. Neeta Parmar and Rutugna Trivedi for purpose of implicating the appellant despite which cross-examination was denied which in breach of principle of natural justice. He submits that in any case request for cross-examination could not have been denied. It is the contention of the respondent that the party cannot seek cross-examinati .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icient to enable the party to present their case effectively. The appellants vide their letter dated 20.10.2021 requested for relied upon documents however, no documents were supplied to them and without giving the documents the hearing was fixed and the impugned order was passed on 29.11.2021. This in our view amounts to denial of opportunity of personal hearing. 4.2 As regard the letter dated 20.10.2021 mentioned in the impugned order that the advocate for the appellants was informed for collecting the documents, however such letter has not been received. We also find that the entire case against the appellants was decided completely relying on the data retrieved from the pen drive but the same was not provided to the appellant. The appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... udicating authority contended that party cannot seek cross- examination of co-noticee which is absolutely incorrect in the light of the following judgments:- Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd (GNFC) vs. UOI 2020 (1) TMI 1204 Shree Salasarji Metal Industries vs. UOI 2018 (9) TMI 1980 Vasudev Garg 4.5 As per the settled legal position as observed above we are of the clear view that the adjudicating authority has grossly violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the data/ relied upon documents and by not allowing the cross- examination of the witnesses as requested by the appellants. Therefore, in our considered view the impugned order will not sustain to the extent of the present appellants. Hence, we set .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates