M/S A M Builders Material Suppliers vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue.

Present petition has been filed to assail the adjudication order dated 31.01.2025 on the common portal on 04.02.2025. The said order has been passed under Section 74 (1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, by respondent no.3 for the tax period 2017-18 to 2020-21. 3. At the outset, it has been submitted that along with written reply submitted by the petitioner dated 15.1.2024, the petitioner had asked for opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses relied by the revenue. Further, during the course of proceedings, the petitioner had applied to be supplied copies of Relied Upon Documents ('RUDs' in short).

Neither all copies of RUDs were supplied to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses relied by the revenue.

Relying on M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE, (2016) 15 SCC 785 and another order passed by the co-ordinate bench in Central Excise Appeal No. 125 of 2019, Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Vs. M/s Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd. and others, it has been asserted that the denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses relied by the revenue, is a fatal defect in the proceedings.

To the extent, that defect as resulted in a violation of principles of natural justice, inference may be offered in this writ petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. However, on further query, he states that it cannot be established from the impugned order that opportunity of cross-examination was given to the petitioner. At the same time it has been indicated, the revenue has no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Krishna Agarawal, Parv Agarwal M/S A M Builders Material Suppliers .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

To the extent, cross-examination is necessary to be provided to ensure rules of fairness and also due compliance of the rules of natural justice and further to the extent it does appear that the present petitioner was denied that opportunity, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) In view of the above for reason of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses relied by the revenue, the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. (ii) For the above purpose, the petitioner may make an application before the respondent no. 3 to obtain copies of all RUDs etc. as may have been relied against and therefore be required by the petitioner. (iii) Subject to such application being made within a period of one week from today, copies of all RUDs may be made available to the petitioner within a further period of one week. Thereafter, the petitioner may be granted opportunity to cross-examine necessary witnesses relied by the revenue. (iv) The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings, the same shall be concluded expeditiously, preferably on or before 31st March, 2026. October 28, 2025 Pratima WTAX No. 2490 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad