M/S.Amritha Distributors vs. The Joint Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Facts

These four writ petitions (W.P.(MD) Nos. 1053 to 1056 of 2025) were filed by M/s. Amritha Distributors, M/s. Amritha Marketing, M/s. Ganesha & Co., and M/s. Muthu Meenakshi Enterprises, represented by their respective partners or proprietors. The petitioners challenged proceedings initiated by the Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise - Adjudication, acting under the directions of the Joint Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise. The core of the petitioners' grievance was the denial of their request to cross-examine certain individuals, as stated in their reply dated 28.10.2024. The impugned letters were dated 27.11.2024. The petitioners sought to quash these letters and prayed for a direction to allow them to cross-examine the persons they had requested.

Held

The Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The counsel stated that these Writ Petitions had become infructuous. This was due to subsequent orders that were the subject matter of other Writ Petitions listed for hearing on the same day. Based on this submission, the Court recorded that the petitions were infructuous. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions as infructuous. No costs were awarded. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the cross-examination issue or the specific provisions of GST law that might govern it, as the petitions were disposed of on the ground of being infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to cross-examine the persons identified in their reply dated 28.10.2024, as a matter of procedural fairness under GST law? 2. Whether the impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2024, which denied the request for cross-examination, are liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that the denial of their right to cross-examine individuals was a violation of their procedural rights. They contended that this denial prejudiced their ability to present their case effectively before the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities, represented by the Joint Commissioner and Superintendent of CGST & Central Excise, did not appear to have filed a formal counter or presented arguments against the petitioners' claim for cross-examination within the provided judgment text. The judgment notes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the petitions becoming infructuous.