9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KERALA HIGH COURT], it was observed that the basic requirement of the rule of law is to grant an opportunity of hearing to the persons against whom proceedings have been initiated. When statements of third parties are relied upon, it is one of the fundamental requirements that the party against whom such statements have been relied upon is granted an opportunity to question the person who gave such statements. This requirement flows from the opportunity of hearing required to be given as per Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. This Court had further observed that unilateral statements behind the back of a person cannot under any circumstances be justified under the rule of law, even if the proceedings are quasi judicial in nature. In the insta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name and style of "Blue Star Traders", and is a registered tax payer under the CGST/KSGST Act, 2017. 2. Petitioner challenges the communication dated 21.11.2024 refusing to grant an opportunity FOR cross examination of persons whose statements were allegedly utilised by the officer while issuing Ext.P1 show cause notice. 3. Pursuant to a search conducted by the Enforcement Squad No.1 on 23.05.2024, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to impose a huge amount as tax as well as penalty. In the show cause notice specific references are made to statements, obtained from two persons by name Mr.Abdul Salam K and Mr.Shajahan K.T. Those statements were utilised by the respondent while proposing to impose tax and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not under any circumstances be justified under the rule of law, even if the proceedings are quasi judicial in nature. 6. In the instant case, it is evident that statements of two persons have been used by the respondent to issue show cause notice. Thus, when those statements were proposed to be used against the petitioner, it is a fundamental requirement to grant an opportunity for cross examination. The request of the petitioner as seen from Ext.P2 communication ought to have been allowed by the respondent. Therefore, declining to grant permission to cross-examine as per Ext.P3 is a contravention of the principles of natural justice which flows from the opportunity of hearing required to be granted under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
