M/S Treveni Cargo Movers PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Treveni Cargo Movers Pvt. Faridabad, challenged an order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate. This order imposed tax and penalty on the petitioner for failing to produce consignment notes or documentary proof to substantiate their claim of providing services related to the transportation of goods by road. The petitioner contended that they were ready to produce the consignment notes, and a copy of a consignment note dated 14.08.2015 was placed on record. The respondent revenue authority argued that the impugned order was appealable and correctly passed due to the non-production of consignment notes.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner should be granted one more opportunity to produce the consignment notes before the Assessing Authority. The reasoning was that the non-furnishing of consignment notes was the basis for the assessment order, and the petitioner expressed readiness to produce them. The Court found that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal, but decided to allow the petition to ensure a fair process. The order dated 30.08.2022 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer-Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Faridabad, for passing a fresh order after the petitioner furnishes the consignment notes. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer should be given a reasonable opportunity to produce crucial documentary evidence, especially when such evidence is central to the tax authority's decision, and that the appellate remedy should not preclude a High Court from intervening when such an opportunity is denied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Joint Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, was justified in passing an order imposing tax and penalty on the petitioner without affording an opportunity to produce consignment notes, despite the petitioner's readiness to do so? The petitioner argued that they were prepared to submit the consignment notes and had already placed a copy on record, implying that the order was passed prematurely and without considering all available evidence. The revenue contended that the impugned order, which imposed tax and penalty, was correctly passed as the petitioner failed to produce the necessary consignment notes, and that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal against this order.