2024 (12) TMI 660 - HC - GST

Order set aside for denying petitioner access to documents used against him, violating natural justice principles

Surinderpal Chamanlal Aggarwal HUF (Metals and General Trading Co.) Versus State of Maharashtra, Commissioner of State Tax Mumbai, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Mumbai.

The Bombay HC set aside an order dated 30 April 2024 due to violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner was not provided copies of documents ... Maintainability of petition - non-availability of alternate and efficacious remedies - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, such documents were neither referred to in the show cause notice nor were the copies of these documents ever furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of these documents or, rather, came to know that such documents were being used against him only after the receipt of the impugned order. Since the documents form a substantial basis of the impugned order as stated in the impugned order itself, the petitioner should have been furnished copies or at least made aware in the show cause notice that such documents were proposed to be used against the petitioner. Since this was not done, the petitioner that there has been a failure of natural justice. Only on account of the failure of natural justice and without adverting to the merits, the impugned order dated 30 April 2024 is set aside, and the the matter remanded for fresh decision following law. However, the respondents must furnish the documents at Sr.No.1, 2 and 3 referred to in the references in the impugned order and any other material they may seek to rely upon or use against the petitioner - petition disposed off by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to Order-in-Original dated 30 April 2024 by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (State GST); Allegation of violation of principles of natural justice and fair play in the impugned order.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 30 April 2024, claiming a violation of natural justice and fair play due to reliance on undisclosed documents. The petitioner argued that the impugned order extensively referred to specific documents not provided earlier, leading to a breach of natural justice. The respondent argued that the petitioner had the opportunity to establish the genuineness of transactions with a supplier highlighted in the show cause notice. The court noted that certain key documents were crucial to the impugned order but were not disclosed to the petitioner initially, which constituted a failure of natural justice.The court observed that the reliance on undisclosed documents without prior notice to the petitioner was a violation of natural justice. The court emphasized the importance of providing copies of all relevant documents to the petitioner and allowing a reasonable opportunity to respond. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30 April 2024 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating officer for a fresh decision following due process. The court directed the respondents to furnish the undisclosed documents and any other material they intended to rely upon to the petitioner for a fair hearing.The court clarified that the decision was solely based on the failure of natural justice and did not delve into the merits of the case. All contentions on merits were left open for future consideration. The Rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioner, and the petition was disposed of without any cost order. Any interim orders were vacated, and related applications were disposed of accordingly. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding principles of natural justice and fair play in administrative proceedings, ensuring transparency and a fair opportunity for all parties involved.