Ms Blue Star International PVT LTD & Ors. vs. Commissioner Central Excise And Central GST Comissionerate Delhi South

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Atlantic International Trading Pvt. Ltd. and others, M/s Blue Star International Pvt Ltd and others, and M/s Sunflame Trading Pvt Ltd and others, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court. The petitions challenged a show cause notice dated 16.08.2022 issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Central GST, Delhi South. The revenue, represented by Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, stated that relied upon documents (RUDs) appended to the show cause notice had been furnished to the petitioners. For documents not on record but in the custody of the revenue, photocopies would be furnished with an endorsement indicating they are backed by seized documents. Electronic devices would be cloned and returned to the petitioners' authorized representatives. The exercise was to be concluded within four weeks, after which the petitioners would have six weeks to file their reply to the show cause notice. The petitioners' counsel agreed to close the writ petitions based on these directions.

Held

The Court took on record the statement made by Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue. The revenue undertook to furnish photocopies of documents not on record but in their custody, with an endorsement confirming they are backed by seized documents. Electronic devices would be cloned and returned to the petitioners' authorized representatives. This exercise was to be completed within four weeks, with written communication to be sent to the petitioners and their counsel. Following the completion of this exercise, the petitioners were granted six weeks to file their reply to the show cause notice dated 16.08.2022. The Court made it clear that the petitioners would bear the costs of photocopies and cloning. In light of these directions, the writ petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revenue has adequately furnished the relied upon documents (RUDs) to the petitioners as required by law, and if not, what is the appropriate course of action? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners sought the complete and proper furnishing of all relied upon documents and the cloning of electronic devices to enable them to file a proper reply to the show cause notice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue stated that RUDs appended to the show cause notice had been furnished. For other documents in their custody, photocopies would be provided with endorsements. Electronic devices would be cloned and returned. The revenue undertook to complete this exercise within a specified timeframe.