M/S Elora Tobacco Company Limited Through Its Director Shri Dharmendra Singh Parmar vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition is not maintainable because it seeks identical reliefs that were already granted in Writ Petition No. 12326/2024 and subsequently considered by the Supreme Court. The Court found no new cause of action or allegation of non-compliance with previous orders. Regarding the petitioner's contention that Excise Officers prepared statutory documents which should be returned, the Court rejected this argument. It reasoned that Section 35 of the CGST Act and Rule 56 of the CGST Rules clearly mandate the registered person to maintain true and correct accounts of production, inward and outward supply, stock, input tax credit, and output tax payable. The Court found the petitioner's claim based on the circular regarding Range Officers' duties to be baseless, as the circular's provisions do not absolve the registered person of their statutory obligations. The Court also noted that the petitioner had been allowed to cross-examine 11 witnesses whose statements were relied upon in the show-cause notices, a fact not disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petition was misconceived and filed with a malafide intention to delay the adjudication proceedings, especially since final orders had been passed in other cases. The petition was dismissed with costs.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Elora Tobacco Company Limited, engaged in manufacturing and selling cigarettes, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition was filed after a previous writ petition (WP-12326/2024) was allowed on 20.05.2024, directing the respondents (GST authorities) to provide original seized documents not relied upon in show-cause notices and to allow the petitioner to submit a reply, cross-examine witnesses, and receive a personal hearing. The respondents had approached the Supreme Court against this order, which was declined, but directed the return of certified copies of non-relied documents. A subsequent miscellaneous application before the Supreme Court directed the department to furnish certified copies of three specific files. The current writ petition seeks identical reliefs as the previous one, without alleging non-compliance with prior court orders or the emergence of new facts. The respondents contend that all necessary documents and witness cross-examinations have been provided, and the petition is a tactic to delay adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable when identical reliefs were sought and granted in a previous writ petition (WP-12326/2024) and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, and no fresh cause of action or non-compliance has been pleaded (Section 226 of the Constitution of India)? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to demand the return of statutory documents prepared by Excise Officers, based on a circular concerning the duties of Range Officers, when Section 35 of the GST Act and Rule 56 of the CGST Rules mandate the registered person to maintain accounts (Section 35 of CGST Act, Rule 56 of CGST Rules, Circular dated 24.12.2008)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the original documents seized and not relied upon in the show-cause notices, and to cross-examine witnesses. They also contended that Excise Inspectors posted at their premises prepared statutory documents, which should be returned to them as per a circular. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the current petition is not maintainable as it seeks the same reliefs already adjudicated. They stated that relied and non-relied documents have been supplied, and 11 witnesses have been produced and cross-examined. They further argued that the petitioner's claim regarding documents prepared by Excise Officers is baseless, as Section 35 of the GST Act and Rule 56 of the CGST Rules place the onus of maintaining accounts on the registered person. They submitted that the petition is filed with a malafide intention to stall adjudication proceedings.