Return of original non relied documents in tax adjudication affirmed; scanned copies deemed insufficient due to integrity concerns

Direction to return original non-relied documents in tax adjudication was sustained, with the court finding originals necessary to preserve evidence integrity and ensure fair procedure; this outcome required respondents to restore originals that were not relied upon in show cause notices. The court rejected the sufficiency of scanned copies because of identified inconsistencies in scanning and procedural lapses during the search and seizure, including deficiencies in panchnama and document identification. The review petition was dismissed under the limited grounds for review, the court holding that no error apparent on the face of the record justified re hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Review of the final order dated 20.05.2024.
2. Requirement to return original non-relied documents.
3. Admissibility and integrity of scanned documents.
4. Compliance with procedural guidelines during search and seizure.
5. Scope and grounds for review under Order XLVII of the CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Review of the Final Order Dated 20.05.2024:
The petitioner sought a review of the final order dated 20.05.2024, which had allowed the writ petition of Respondent No.1. The relief granted included the direction to hand over original documents seized but not relied upon in the show cause notices, enabling the petitioner to submit a reply. The petitioner argued that Respondent No.1 was stalling adjudication proceedings by insisting on original documents that were lost and for which FIR No.393/2022 had been filed.

2. Requirement to Return Original Non-Relied Documents:
The court directed the respondents to return original non-relied documents to the petitioner, as mandated by Section 67(3) of the CGST Act. Respondent No.1 argued that original documents are crucial for a fair defense and procedural fairness, as they eliminate disputes over authenticity. The petitioner countered that scanned copies should suffice under Section 145 of the CGST Act, but the court maintained the necessity of original documents for integrity and fairness in the adjudication process.

3. Admissibility and Integrity of Scanned Documents:
The petitioner claimed that the lost documents were statutory and that scanned copies had been provided, which should be admissible. However, Respondent No.1 highlighted inconsistencies in the scanning process, raising doubts about the credibility of the scanned documents. The court emphasized the importance of original documents to avoid potential disputes over authenticity and accuracy, rejecting the petitioner's argument.

4. Compliance with Procedural Guidelines During Search and Seizure:
Respondent No.1 contended that the search and seizure conducted on 04.07.2020 did not comply with CBIC guidelines, as the panchnama lacked detailed particulars and Document Identification Numbers (DIN). The court noted these procedural lapses, which further justified the need for original documents to ensure a fair adjudication process.

5. Scope and Grounds for Review Under Order XLVII of the CPC:
The court reiterated the limited scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which allows for review only on grounds of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons. The court cited precedents emphasizing that review is not a rehearing of the original matter but is confined to correcting manifest errors. The court found no such error in the original order and upheld the directions given, maintaining that the order was just and proper.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the original order dated 20.05.2024 was supported by legal provisions and binding judicial precedents. The directions to return original non-relied documents were upheld to ensure procedural fairness and integrity in the adjudication process. The court stressed that review is not an appellate procedure and must be confined to correcting manifest errors, which were not present in this case.

---