Natural justice requires supply of relied-upon statements and cross-examination before adverse adjudication is sustained.

Denial of relied-upon statements and refusal to permit cross-examination of witnesses used against the noticee was treated as a breach of natural justice. The adjudication was also found to be a non-speaking order lacking proper analysis of the facts. The fact that cross-examination had been conducted in a linked case did not cure the defect, because an affected person has an independent right to inspect adverse material and cross-examine the witnesses relied upon against them. The adjudication and appellate order were therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after supplying the documents and granting a reasonable opportunity of cross-examination if sought.

---

---

Issues: Whether denial of the relied-upon statements and refusal to allow cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were used against the noticee vitiated the adjudication and warranted remand for de novo proceedings.

Analysis: The adjudication was found to be a non-speaking order lacking proper analysis of the facts. The statements relied upon by the Revenue, which implicated the appellant, had not been supplied, and the requested cross-examination of the witnesses was not afforded. The reason that such cross-examination had already been undertaken in another linked case was held insufficient, because a person affected by adverse material retains an independent right to inspect the material and cross-examine the witnesses against it. Denial of these procedural safeguards was held to be contrary to the principles of natural justice and the rule of law.

Conclusion: The adjudication and the appellate order could not be sustained, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration after supplying the relied-upon documents and granting a reasonable opportunity of cross-examination if sought.

---