M/S. Dabang Dunia Publications Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Pankaj Majupuria vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the impugned order-in-original dated 05.02.2025 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the adjudicating authority was wholly unjustified in holding that the order passed in the case of Elora Tobacco would not be applicable to other noticees, including the petitioners. The Court emphasized that such directions are a facet of the principle of natural justice and ought to have been followed by a quasi-judicial authority. The Court rejected the reasoning of the assessing authority that the order in Elora Tobacco was only in respect of one noticee, stating that judicial authorities are bound to follow the doctrine of Judicial Discipline and Propriety. Once the High Court had held in respect of one noticee for giving an opportunity of cross-examination and return of documents, the authority ought to have followed the same. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matters back to the adjudicating authority. The respondents were directed to hand over all unrelied documents to the petitioners, who were granted liberty to file a fresh reply within 30 days. The adjudicating authority was to decide the case afresh after considering the reply and affording due opportunity of hearing, including the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed anything on the merits of the case. For WP No. 17609/2025, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner had not appeared or made any applications for document return or cross-examination.

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed challenging orders-in-original passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Indore. The primary petitioner, M/s. Dabang Dunia Publications Private Limited, challenged an order dated 05.02.2025 confirming a GST demand of Rs. 151,64,38,832/- and Compensation Cess of Rs. 1794,58,34,178/-. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice, as it was denied adequate opportunity to defend its case, including access to non-relied upon documents and the right to cross-examine witnesses. The proceedings stemmed from allegations of tax evasion by M/s Elora Tobacco, with the petitioner allegedly facilitating money laundering through inflated newspaper circulation figures and fictitious advertisement invoices. The petitioner highlighted a previous High Court order in the case of Elora Tobacco, which granted similar reliefs regarding document return and cross-examination, and argued that the department failed to extend these reliefs to them.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order-in-original dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central GST and Excise, Indore, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner adequate opportunity to defend its case, specifically concerning the right to access non-relied upon documents and cross-examine witnesses, as mandated by the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: - The impugned order was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and in disregard of this Court's order in M/s Elora Tobacco Company Limited v. Union of India. - No adequate or reasonable opportunity was afforded to effectively defend its case during adjudication. - The respondents failed to provide copies of all non-relied upon documents and denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of allegations. - The adjudicating authority rejected requests for document return and cross-examination, despite a binding precedent from this Court in the Elora Tobacco case. - Adjudication was concluded in the absence of a final determination against the principal noticee, M/s Elora Tobacco. Revenue's Arguments: - The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue side regarding the denial of natural justice or the applicability of the Elora Tobacco judgment to other noticees. However, it notes the respondents' stand in WP No. 17609/2025 that the petitioner did not appear, did not apply for document return, and did not seek cross-examination.