Aditya Steel Trading Through Its Proprietor Mr Amit Lallan Dubey vs. Joint Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Pune 1

Facts

The Petitioner, Aditya Steel Trading, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated December 28, 2023, and December 30, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 1 (Joint Commissioner, CGST) and Respondent No. 2, respectively. The Petitioner contended that these orders were passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Specifically, the Petitioner stated that documents referenced in Paragraph 17 of the Show Cause Notice dated September 25, 2023, and copies of impounded documents were only provided on December 6, 2023. This, the Petitioner argued, prevented them from effectively replying to the Show Cause Notice before the impugned orders were issued. The Respondent conceded that impounded documents were provided on December 6, 2023.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated December 28, 2023, and December 30, 2023, were passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. While not delving into the dispute of whether all documents referenced in the Show Cause Notice were provided initially, the Court found it undeniable that copies of the impounded documents were given to the Petitioner only on December 6, 2023. The Court reasoned that without these impounded documents, even if other referenced documents were supplied earlier, the Petitioner could not have effectively responded to the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 1 for de novo consideration. The Petitioner was directed to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice by July 5, 2024, and Respondent No. 1 was directed to pass a reasoned and detailed order after providing a personal hearing by August 31, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated December 28, 2023, and December 30, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2, respectively, were violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to an effective opportunity to reply to a Show Cause Notice, in light of the delayed supply of relevant documents? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the impugned orders were liable to be quashed and set aside because they were passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice after the necessary documents, including impounded documents, were made available only on December 6, 2023. This delay prejudiced their ability to respond effectively. Respondent's Argument: The Respondent stated that documents referenced in Paragraph 17 of the Show Cause Notice were provided along with the notice. However, they conceded that impounded documents were given to the Petitioner only on December 6, 2023.