Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the adjudication could be sustained when the unrelied upon seized documents were not returned and the appellants were denied an effective opportunity to defend themselves, including cross-examination of relied upon witnesses.
Analysis: The proceedings were found to be vitiated by manifest unfairness because the appellants were denied access to documents necessary for their defence and were not afforded cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon. A proceeding concluded without enabling an effective defence is not sustainable, and the authority had no right to retain unrelied upon documents that were necessary for the appellants' reply and participation in the proceedings.
Conclusion: The adjudication was unsustainable for breach of natural justice and fair play, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after returning the unrelied upon documents, permitting copies of relied upon documents, and granting cross-examination.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the ground of denial of a fair hearing, and the original order was set aside with a fresh adjudication directed.
Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication is unsustainable when it is concluded without supplying material necessary for defence and without affording cross-examination where relied upon statements are used.