Procedural Irregularity Acknowledged: Document Disclosure Flaw Found, Alternative Appeal Pathway Opened for Petitioner

HC ruled that while there was a prima facie procedural irregularity in document disclosure, the Petitioner was not completely denied natural justice. The court directed provision of seized document copies and mandated the Petitioner to exhaust alternate remedies by filing an appeal within six weeks to the Commissioner (Appeals), preserving all substantive arguments while disposing of the original petition without costs.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 30 November 2023 by Joint Commissioner CGST based on failure of natural justice and exhaustion of alternate remedies.

Analysis:
The petition challenges the Order-in-Original made by the Joint Commissioner CGST. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Petitioner, on the other hand, claimed failure of natural justice, stating that non-relied-upon documents were not provided despite requests and there was no notice of the hearing. The Petitioner argued that failure of natural justice is an exception to exhausting alternate remedies.

The Respondents contended that the relied-upon documents were furnished, and three intimations about the hearing were sent to the Petitioner's registered address. They argued that since no change of address was intimated, the Petitioner cannot claim a failure of natural justice. The court noted that while relied upon documents were provided, copies of unrelied documents were not furnished, indicating a prima facie failure. However, regarding the notice of hearing, the court found that three intimations were sent to the registered address, and the Petitioner had not informed about a change of address.

The court concluded that while there may have been inadequate notice, it did not amount to a complete absence of notice. The Petitioner was directed to be furnished with copies of all seized documents within two weeks. The court declined to entertain the petition, reiterating the need to exhaust alternate remedies. The Petitioner was given liberty to raise all pleas in the appeal. The court directed the Petitioner to file an appeal within six weeks, with the Appellate Authority to decide on the merits.

The petition was disposed of with directions, and no costs were awarded. The interim order would stand vacated if no appeal was filed within six weeks. All parties were instructed to act based on an authenticated copy of the order.

---