9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 29th January, 2025 by which the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the GST liability of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7,13,05,165/- and has imposed an equivalent penalty. Penalties have also been imposed on Petitioner's Directors. 5. At the outset, Mr. Sarin, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that this is the second round of the litigation by the Petitioner. Earlier, this Show Cause Notice (hereinafter 'SCN') dated 29th May, 2024 from which the impugned demand order dated 29th January, 2025 arose was challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that consolidation of investigation for different financial years is not permissible. The said writ petition being W.P.(C) 13855/2024 and the order dated 3rd October, 2024 passed therein, has not been mentioned in the present writ petition. He apologises for the same unconditionally and submits that it was an inadvertent error. The Court has perused the order dated 3rd October, 2024 passed in the said writ petition, wherein on the question of consolidation, the Court has disposed of the matter. 6. The second grievance which is now being raised in this petition is that the SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned, it was the submission of learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the same would not sustain bearing in mind the provisions contained in Section 74 (10) of the CGST Act, 2017/DGST Act, 2017. Insofar as that question is concerned, we leave it open to the writ petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings independently. 5. Bearing in mind the well settled principles which govern situations and contingencies in which a SCN challenge may be entertained by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, we find no ground to entertain the instant writ petition. 6. It shall, subject to the aforesaid observation, stand dismissed." 11. After the writ petition was disposed of on 3rd October, 2024, the Show Cause Notice proceedings continued before the Adjudicating Authority and the Petitioner made a request for cross-examination of five persons, namely, Sh. Vinod Baid, Sh. Kamal Kishore Karnani, Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal, Sh. Deepak Kumar Jha and Sh. Anil Kumar. The said prayer for cross-examination was denied/ rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 20th January, 2025, inter alia, on the ground that the statements in question were only corroborative of undisputed documentary evi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant portion of the decision reads as under: "15. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that in order to ensure that there is compliance of Section 138 (B) of the Act, though the same cannot be claimed as an unfettered right in all cases, in the facts of the present case, both Mr. Sushil Aggarwal and Mr. Aidasani are afforded an opportunity to cross examine Mr. Bhalla." 16. The rationale behind setting aside an order/judgment on the grounds of non-provision of the right to cross-examine is to safeguard the affected party from being prejudiced due to non-providing of cross examination. Therefore, such reasoning presumes/implies the existence of prejudice. In other words, if the alleging party fails to prove any substantial prejudice caused to it due to such non-provision, it shall not have the inherent right to set aside such an order/judgment. This view has been upheld by the Supreme Court in various judgments including M/s. Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. v Special Director Of Enforcement 2013 (9) SCC 549. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: "23. That brings us to the third limb of the attack mounted by the appellants against the impugned orders. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case." 17. In the present case, the request to cross-examine certain witness statements was rejected, as mentioned above, on the grounds that the statements in question were only corroborative of undisputed documentary evidence already on record, and thus, did not warrant cross-examination. The Supreme Court in Telestar Travels (Supra) while, in fact, dealing with similar circumstances has observed as under: "28. Coming to the case at hand, the adjudicating authority has mainly relied upon the statements of the appellants and the documents seized in the course of the search of their premises. But, there is no dispute that apart from what was seized from the business premises of the appellants, the adjudicating authority also placed reliance upon the documents produced by Miss Anita Chotrani and Mr Raut. These documents were, it is admitted, disclosed to the appellants who were permitted to inspect the same. The production of the documents duly confronted to the appellants was in the nature of production in terms of Section 139 of the Evidence Act, where the witness producing the documents is not subjected to cross-ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
