2025 (7) TMI 837 - HC - GST

Denial of cross-examination opportunity in CGST proceedings violates natural justice principles under Evidence Act

Paper Trade Links Through Its Proprietor Shri Sandeep Bhargava Versus Union Of India Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And Others

MP HC held that denial of cross-examination opportunity regarding witnesses whose statements were relied upon in CGST proceedings violated principles of ... Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of cross-examination not provided to the witnesses whose statements were relied in CGST Act - Levy of tax and penalty - HELD THAT:- The right of cross-examination is provided under the Evidence Act. Every witness who either give oral statement or give affidavit are always subjected to cross-examination as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2013 (8) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT]. The Apex Court has held that the cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded back to the authority to proceed further at the stage of cross-examination. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court are:Whether the petitioner was denied the fundamental right of cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon under the CGST Act;Whether the denial of cross-examination violates the principles of natural justice;Whether the petitioner's delay in seeking cross-examination and failure to explain the need for it justifies refusal of the opportunity;Whether the impugned order imposing tax liability and penalty without allowing cross-examination is sustainable;Whether the writ petition challenging the order is maintainable despite the availability of an appeal;What is the proper procedural conduct regarding cross-examination in proceedings under the CGST Act in light of established legal precedents.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Right to Cross-Examination and Principles of Natural JusticeThe relevant legal framework includes the principles enshrined in the Evidence Act and the doctrine of natural justice. The Court extensively relied upon authoritative precedents, notably the Apex Court's ruling in a case where it was held that cross-examination is an integral part of natural justice. The Court cited paragraphs 23, 42, and 46 of that judgment, which emphasize that:Rules of natural justice require that a party be given the opportunity to adduce relevant evidence and to cross-examine the opposing party's witnesses;Failure to provide such an opportunity constitutes a violation of natural justice;The right to cross-examination is fundamental and cannot be denied merely on procedural grounds such as delay;Any order passed without allowing cross-examination is liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.The Court noted that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon to impose tax and penalty under the CGST Act. The authority rejected the prayer for cross-examination on the grounds of delay and the correctness of the statements under Section 70 of the CGST Act. However, these reasons were found inadequate because the principle of natural justice mandates that cross-examination cannot be denied solely due to procedural delays or the authority's subjective satisfaction with the statements.Issue 2: Maintainability of the Writ Petition Despite Availability of AppealThe respondents contended that the impugned order was appealable, hence the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court rejected this argument, holding that when an order suffers from violation of natural justice, a writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy. This principle ensures that fundamental procedural rights are protected and cannot be circumvented by procedural technicalities.Issue 3: Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Court carefully examined the reasons given by the authority for denying cross-examination. The authority's reliance on the petitioner's delay and the purported correctness of statements was found insufficient to override the petitioner's right to cross-examination. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had not been given a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence against him. The Court also referred to the Apex Court's observation that applications for cross-examination must be disposed of before finalizing any report or order, and failure to do so vitiates the proceedings.Consequently, the Court concluded that the impugned order imposing tax liability and penalty without allowing cross-examination was invalid. The Court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the authority to conduct cross-examination and proceed in accordance with law.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'The rules of natural justice require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice.''When the order suffers from principle of natural justice, then the Writ Petition is maintainable.''Before the submission of any report by the Scrutiny Committee, his application for calling the witnesses for cross-examination must be disposed of, and appellant must be given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who have been examined before the Committee.'These holdings establish the core principle that cross-examination is an indispensable facet of fair procedure under the CGST Act and any order passed without affording this right is liable to be set aside. The Court's final determination was to quash the impugned order and remit the matter for fresh proceedings allowing cross-examination, thereby reinforcing the primacy of natural justice in quasi-judicial tax proceedings.