Petitioners must participate in adjudication after receiving relied-upon documents with protected redactions for third-party confidentiality

The Bombay HC rejected challenges to show cause notices regarding supply of relied upon documents. The court held that while petitioners requested information and documents from adjudicating authorities, they avoided providing specifics and refused to explain relevancy of requested materials. Following Supreme Court precedent in T. Takano, the court balanced disclosure rights against third-party confidentiality concerns and market stability. The HC ruled that investigation reports must be furnished to petitioners but can be redacted to protect sensitive information about sources and unrelated third parties. Since respondents had supplied all relied-upon documents and allowed inspection of non-relied documents, and given assurances that notices would be decided based on furnished materials, the court found sufficient transparency existed. Petitioners were directed to participate in adjudication proceedings without further delay.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 15(5) of the CGST Act and Rule 31-A of the CGST Rules.
2. Challenge against the show cause notice dated 27.09.2023.
3. Request for inspection and furnishing of documents/materials related to the investigation.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Constitutional Validity:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 15(5) of the CGST Act and Rule 31-A of the CGST Rules. The High Court issued Rule in Writ Petition No. 715/2023 and connected petitions.

2. Challenge to Show Cause Notice:
The petitioners challenged the show cause notice dated 27.09.2023, arguing it was issued under unconstitutional provisions. The respondents agreed not to pass any final orders on the show cause notices without the Court's leave.

3. Request for Documents and Inspection:
The petitioners sought comprehensive inspection of documents related to the investigation, including the investigation report, inter-departmental communications, and data shared with the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI).

- Investigation Report: The Court observed that the respondents' affidavit suggested an investigation report was prepared and culminated into the show cause notice. The Court directed the respondents to furnish this report to the petitioners within two weeks, allowing redaction of sensitive information.

- Inter-departmental Communications and File Notings: The Court found the petitioners' request for inter-departmental communications and file notings to be a fishing expedition aimed at delaying the adjudication. The Court denied this request.

- Data Shared with ISI: The Court found no sufficient justification for the petitioners' request for data shared with ISI, noting that the reasons for engaging ISI were already disclosed in the show cause notice.

The Court concluded that the respondents had already provided the petitioners with all Relied-Upon Documents (RUD) and several Non-Relied-Upon Documents (Non-RUD), ensuring sufficient transparency and fairness. The petitioners were directed to participate in the adjudication process without delay, with the liberty to raise issues of natural justice if necessary.

Conclusion:
The civil applications were disposed of with specific directions regarding the investigation report and a clear mandate for the petitioners to proceed with the adjudication process. No order for costs was made.

---