M/S Thoppil Agencies vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent had already passed a final order. Consequently, the petitioner intended to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the said final order in accordance with law. The Court placed the submission on record and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the final order passed by the respondent authority. The issue regarding the refusal to comply with the previous order and provide the right of cross-examination was not decided on merits due to the withdrawal of the petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Thoppil Agencies, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging a show cause notice dated September 29, 2020, issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and related state and integrated GST acts. The petitioner sought to quash this notice on the grounds that the first respondent refused to comply with a previous court order dated August 12, 2020, in W.P. No. 116528/2019, which had granted the petitioner the right to cross-examine and access incriminating materials. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement-2) and the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement).

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine witnesses and access incriminating materials, as per the previous order dated 12.08.2020 in W.P. No. 116528/2019, before the final order is passed pursuant to the show cause notice dated 29.09.2020 issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act and other relevant provisions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the first respondent had refused to comply with the order dated 12.08.2020 in W.P. No. 116528/2019, which granted the right of cross-examination and access to incriminating materials. Therefore, the subsequent show cause notice and any ensuing proceedings were vitiated. Respondents' contention: The respondents did not file any specific arguments in the provided text. However, the court order indicates the learned Additional Government Advocate took notice for the respondents.