Tax Authorities Must Disclose Full Unredacted Documents to Petitioners Within One Week, Ensuring Fair Hearing Principles

HC ruled that tax authorities (DGGI) must provide complete, unredacted Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) to Petitioners within one week, ensuring fair hearing principles. The court mandated 30 days for Petitioners to file reply after receiving full documents, followed by personal hearing. Partial document disclosure was deemed insufficient, violating natural justice, and the Department was directed to ensure procedural compliance in the GST proceedings.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

• Whether the Respondents are obligated to supply the complete set of Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) referenced in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 18th March 2025 to the Petitioners;
• Whether partial, redacted, or selective disclosure of RUDs satisfies the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness in the context of adjudication under the relevant tax laws;
• The procedural obligations of the Respondents, particularly the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) and the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of CGST, in furnishing complete evidence to the Petitioners to enable them to effectively respond to the SCN;
• The appropriate remedy and directions to ensure compliance with the principles of fair hearing and due process in the issuance of SCNs and related proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Obligation to Supply Complete RUDs

The legal framework governing issuance of Show Cause Notices and supply of relied upon documents in proceedings under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime is grounded in the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair opportunity to be heard. Precedents emphasize that the person against whom a SCN is issued must be furnished with all material evidence relied upon by the department to enable an effective and fair response.

The Court noted that the Petitioners had received only partial and redacted extracts of the RUDs, including panchnamas, statements of individuals, and an email containing an Excel sheet, rather than complete documents. This selective furnishing was challenged as insufficient and violative of the Petitioners' right to a fair hearing.

The Respondents, particularly the DGGI which issued the SCN, did not appear, and the counsel for the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of CGST stated lack of instructions from the DGGI, indicating a failure in coordination and responsibility to provide complete disclosure.

The Court reasoned that the nature of the proceedings and the serious consequences of the SCN necessitate full disclosure of all RUDs. Partial or redacted documents undermine the ability of the Petitioners to prepare an effective reply and thus violate principles of natural justice.

Procedural Obligations and Fair Hearing

The Court underscored the procedural obligation of the Department to supply the complete RUDs within a reasonable time frame to allow the Petitioners to file a comprehensive reply. The Court directed that all RUDs listed (RUD 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, and 07) be furnished in full within one week.

Further, the Court mandated that upon receipt of the complete RUDs, the Petitioners be allowed 30 days to file their reply, followed by issuance of notice for personal hearing. This sequence ensures adherence to the audi alteram partem principle, allowing the Petitioners to effectively contest the allegations.

The Court's directions reflect established legal principles that the right to a fair hearing encompasses timely and complete disclosure of evidence relied upon by the adjudicating authority.

Treatment of Non-appearance and Lack of Instructions

The absence of representation from the DGGI and the stated lack of instructions to the appearing counsel for the Department were noted as procedural deficiencies. The Court implicitly criticized the Respondents' failure to ensure proper representation and compliance with procedural mandates, which could prejudice the Petitioners' rights.

By ordering compliance and communication of the order to the concerned Department, the Court sought to enforce accountability and procedural propriety.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"Considering the nature of request, the Department should have supplied a complete set of RUDs to the Petitioners to enable them to file proper reply to the SCN dated 18th March 2025."

"Accordingly, it is directed that all the above RUDs in full be provided to the Petitioners within one week."

"Upon receiving the RUDs, let the Petitioners file their reply in the proceedings within 30 days thereto. Upon reply being filed, notice of personal hearing shall be served and after hearing the Petitioners, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass orders in accordance with law."

The core principles established include:

• The requirement of furnishing complete and unredacted relied upon documents to the party against whom a SCN is issued is integral to the right to a fair hearing under Article 226 of the Constitution;
• Partial or selective disclosure of evidence is insufficient and violates principles of natural justice;
• Timely provision of documents and adequate opportunity to reply and be heard are procedural mandates that must be strictly adhered to by the Department;
• Failure of departmental officers to appear or provide instructions does not absolve the Department of its obligations to ensure procedural fairness;
• The adjudicating authority must pass orders only after the Petitioner has had a full and fair opportunity to respond to the complete set of evidence.

Final determinations on each issue were in favor of the Petitioners, directing the Respondents to supply the complete RUDs, allow time for reply, conduct personal hearing, and proceed to adjudication in accordance with law.

---