M/S Sangam Scooter Centre vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s Sangam Scooter Centre, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The petitioner challenged an order dated 21.02.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and CGST Commissionerate, Jaipur. The core grievance was that a show cause notice was issued via email, but the Compact Disk (CD) containing scanned images of documents and material relied upon by the authority was not supplied to the petitioner. This lack of essential documentation hindered the petitioner's ability to respond effectively to the show cause notice.

Held

The Court held that the non-supply of the Compact Disk (CD) containing the relied-upon documents along with the show cause notice, even if issued via email, constituted a procedural lapse that prejudiced the petitioner. The Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance that this omission denied them a fair opportunity to present their case adequately. The reasoning was based on the principle that a party facing allegations must be provided with all the material on which those allegations are based to enable them to defend themselves. The Court acknowledged the respondent's submission that the non-supply was due to inadvertence. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Additional Commissioner to decide afresh in accordance with the law after providing the CD to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Additional Commissioner on 28.04.2025 at 11:00 A.M. to facilitate the process and avoid further delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the non-supply of the Compact Disk (CD) containing relied-upon documents along with the show cause notice, issued via email, violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of a show cause notice through email, without providing the accompanying CD containing the supporting documents, prejudiced their ability to prepare a proper and effective response. They contended that this omission amounted to a denial of a fair opportunity to be heard, a fundamental principle of natural justice. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by learned counsel, fairly submitted that the non-supply of the CD was due to inadvertence. They did not dispute the fact of non-supply but attributed it to an oversight.