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 demand, credit disallowance and penalties were liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for denial of cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon and for non-consideration of the assessee's reply.
Analysis: The demand was founded mainly on statements of suppliers alleging non-supply of raw materials, and those statements were relied upon in the adjudication. In such circumstances, denial of cross-examination of the makers of the statements vitiated the adjudication, as it offended the principles of natural justice. The record also showed that the assessee had filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice, including a limitation objection and a factual rebuttal, but that defence was not considered before passing the impugned order.
Conclusion: The impugned order was bad in law and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Jurisdictional Commissioner for fresh decision after granting cross-examination, a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, and consideration of the assessee's reply.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an adjudication is based on statements of third parties, denial of cross-examination and non-consideration of the assessee's reply vitiate the order for breach of natural justice.