Revenue must return original non-relied documents within 30 days under Section 67(3) CGST Act and Rule 27

M/s. Elora Tobacco Company Limited Versus Union Of India, The Additional Director General, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (DGGI), The Additional Assistant Director DGGI, Indore, The Commissioner Of Goods And Service Tax, Indore, The Additional Director General (Adjudication) Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Maharashtra

M/s. Elora Tobacco Company Limited Versus Union Of India, The Additional Director General, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (DGGI), The Additional ... Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issues of releasing original documents seized during searches, providing opportunity for reply, cross-examining witnesses, and ensuring fair adjudication proceedings.

Release of Original Documents:
The petitioner sought the release of original documents seized by the Respondent for preparing a defense against show cause notices. The court referred to Section 67(3) of the CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2017, emphasizing the duty to return non-relied documents within 30 days. Citing the case of Methodex Systems Ltd. Vs Union of India, the court held that the petitioner is entitled to receive original non-relied documents to prepare a fair defense.

Cross-Examination of Witnesses:
The petitioner requested the right to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence was relied upon in the show cause notices. The court highlighted the importance of fair hearing and principles of natural justice, citing Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise. It emphasized that the petitioner should be given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the appropriate stage of proceedings.

Judgment:
The court allowed the petition, directing the Respondents to hand over all original seized documents not relied upon in the show cause notices. The petitioner was granted 30 days to submit a reply, and the Respondents were instructed to adjudicate the case after receiving the reply. The petitioner was given the right to cross-examine witnesses during adjudication proceedings, with the liberty to move appropriate applications. The court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and no costs were awarded.