M/S Atlantic International Trading PVT. LTD. And Ors. & Ors. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise And Central GST Comissionerate Delhi South & Anr.

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 August 16, 2022, issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Central GST, Delhi South. The revenue, represented by Mr. Harpreet Singh, stated that relied upon documents (RUDs) appended to the show cause notice had been furnished. For documents not on record but in the custody of the revenue, photocopies would be provided with an endorsement confirming they are backed by seized documents. Electronic devices would be cloned and returned to the petitioners. The exercise was to be completed within four weeks, after which the petitioners would have six weeks to file their reply to the show cause notice. The petitioners agreed to bear the costs of photocopies and cloning.

Held

The Court took on record the statement made by Mr. Harpreet Singh, counsel for the respondent/revenue. The revenue undertook to furnish photocopies of documents not on record but in their custody, with an endorsement indicating they are backed by seized documents. Furthermore, electronic devices would be cloned, and copies would be provided to the authorized representatives of the petitioners. The date and time for this exercise would be fixed and communicated via email to the petitioners and their counsel. This entire exercise was to be concluded within four weeks. Following the completion of this exercise, the petitioners were granted six weeks to file their reply to the show cause notice dated August 16, 2022. The Court directed that the petitioners would bear the costs associated with photocopies and cloning. The writ petitions were subsequently closed in light of these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the revenue has complied with its obligation to furnish all relied upon documents (RUDs) to the petitioners, as required for a fair adjudication of the show cause notice dated August 16, 2022, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that they had not been provided with all the necessary documents to respond to the show cause notice, hindering their ability to present a proper defense. They sought directions for the complete disclosure of all relied upon documents and the cloning of electronic devices seized by the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, stated that all RUDs appended to the show cause notice had already been furnished. They further undertook to provide photocopies of any other documents in their custody, duly endorsed, and to clone the electronic devices. The revenue's primary contention was that they were taking steps to ensure the petitioners had access to the necessary information for their reply.