TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Cross-Examination Deemed Unnecessary: Alternative Evidence Suffices in CGST Act Appeals, Case Remanded for Fresh Merits Review</h1> <h3>M/s FORGING INDIA IRON AND STEEL LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. And THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HOWRAH CGST AND CX COMMISSIONERATE Versus M/s FORGING INDIA IRON AND STEEL LIMITED AND ORS.</h3> M/s FORGING INDIA IRON AND STEEL LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. And THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HOWRAH CGST AND CX COMMISSIONERATE Versus ... The Calcutta High Court, in appeals arising under the CGST Act, 2017, addressed the permissibility of cross-examination of a witness, Niraj Kumar Nathani. The department contended that Nathani's statement was merely corroborative and that other abandoned materials, including statements from company directors and investigation reports, established that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed was ineligible and based on fake documents. The Court observed that the writ court should not have permitted cross-examination on this statement, especially given the availability of other evidence.Significantly, the Court held that 'the said statement need not be referred to in the event the assessee files a statutory appeal before the appellate authority.' It emphasized that factual disputes are inappropriate for adjudication in writ proceedings and that the assessee must file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) CGST & Central Excise Appeal-II Commissionerate, Kolkata, under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.The Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the appellate authority decide the appeal 'without reference to the statement recorded of Niraj Kumar Nathani,' while adjudicating all other issues on merits and in accordance with law after affording personal hearing. Given the delay, the assessee was granted 45 days to file the appeal with compliance to pre-deposit conditions and permitted manual filing due to belatedness.All issues were left open for adjudication by the appellate authority. The observations made by the Single Bench in the impugned order were also set aside, and both matters were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 