Expedited Resolution for Perishable Goods: GST Adjudication Must Conclude Within Four Months, Ensuring Fair Procedural Treatment

HC mandates expedited resolution of GST adjudication proceedings involving seized perishable goods. Court directed completion of adjudication within four months and instructed authority to consider petitioners' request for cross-examination of witnesses. The ruling emphasizes timely resolution of tax-related proceedings while preserving procedural fairness for the parties involved.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in concluding adjudication proceedings and release of seized goods.
2. Request for cross-examination of witnesses and officers mentioned in the Show Cause Notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in concluding adjudication proceedings and release of seized goods
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the Respondent Authority to conclude the adjudication proceedings promptly and release the seized perishable goods. The search and seizure operations conducted on the petitioners' premises led to the seizure of 375 boxes/cartons on specific allegations of fraudulent input tax credit availed by the petitioners. The Court acknowledged the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 130 of the Central GST Act, 2017, denoted as SCN No. 8/2021, which remained pending for adjudication. Despite the petitioners submitting an interim reply to the show cause notice, the adjudication process was yet to be finalized. The Court, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution, directed the adjudicating authority to complete the proceedings within four months from the date of the judgment.

Issue 2: Request for cross-examination of witnesses and officers
The petitioners also requested permission to cross-examine certain officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and other witnesses mentioned in the petition. The petitioners' counsel argued that the interim replies submitted should be considered final for the adjudication process to proceed. However, the Court refrained from deciding on the cross-examination request within the current proceedings. Instead, it instructed the adjudicating authority to consider and dispose of the petitioners' application for cross-examination of witnesses and officers in accordance with the law. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition in the aforementioned terms, maintaining a balance between the petitioners' procedural requests and the need for a timely adjudication process.

---