S.R. Digital Tv And Broadband PVT. LTD. Through Shri Vijay Kumar Garg Son Of Shri Omprakash Garg Age vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's primary ground for filing the writ petition was the non-supply of data collected from a laptop, despite repeated demands. However, it was not disputed that the data and documents relied upon in the show-cause notice were provided. The Court noted that for a fair trial, effective participation by the noticee is essential. The petitioner, instead of appearing through a representative, focused on obtaining all collected data, which was not demanded by the person from whom the data was seized. Given that 15 noticees were involved and most participated in the inquiry, the entire order could not be quashed solely based on the petitioner's grievance. The Court also observed that the appellate authority is competent to examine the effect of non-supply of non-relied upon documents. The Court found that the grounds raised by the petitioner were available before the appellate authority. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the appellate authority, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, S.R. Digital T.V. and Broadband Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the cable network business, filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated 12.11.2019 issued by the GST and Central Excise Indore. The petitioner sought directions to provide copies of all seized digital data and documents to enable them to file an effective reply. During the pendency of the writ petition, an adjudication order dated 19.02.2021 was passed by the Adjudicating Authority, confirming a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 15,01,98,745/- along with a penalty of the same amount against the petitioner and others. The petitioner then filed an application for amendment to challenge this final order. The respondents argued that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal against the final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was denied an effective opportunity of hearing due to the non-supply of demanded documents and data, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, and if so, whether this exception permits entertaining a writ petition despite the availability of an alternative appellate remedy? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the non-supply of crucial digital data, which they needed for their defense, violated the principles of natural justice. They relied on Supreme Court judgments like Radha Krishnan Industries, Uma Nath Pandey, and Harbanslal Sahnia, arguing that exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy exist when statutory authorities act contrary to law or violate natural justice. They also cited other High Court judgments supporting their stance. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that all relied-upon documents and data were already provided. For other documents, the petitioner had not provided specific details. They asserted that the petitioner failed to participate in the inquiry and instead focused on correspondence for data. They relied on Section 67(5) of the CGST Act and Supreme Court judgments like Hindustan Coca Cola Beveraged Pvt. Ltd. and Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, emphasizing that a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available.