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>Bombay HC sets aside AAR orders for violating natural justice, directs fresh consideration with proper evidence examination</h1> <h3>HP India Sales Private Limited Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> HP India Sales Private Limited Versus Union of India & Ors. - 2025:BHC - OS:11439 - DB ISSUES: Whether the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the Chartered Engineer's Certificate and Customer's Certificates submitted by the Petitioner.Whether evidence submitted for the first time before the Appellate Authority can be considered without providing the opposing parties an opportunity to cross-examine and lead rebuttal evidence.Whether the impugned orders require interference on grounds of procedural irregularity and failure to afford a fair opportunity to lead and test evidence.Whether the matter should be remanded to the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) for fresh consideration allowing both parties to lead evidence and cross-examination. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Appellate Authority's orders dated 17 February 2019 and 4 November 2019 were set aside as the crucial portions of the Chartered Engineer's Certificate and Customer's Certificates were either not considered or considered without proper opportunity to the Respondents, rendering the impugned orders 'vitiated' and warranting interference.Evidence produced for the first time before the Appellate Authority cannot be considered without giving the Respondents an opportunity to cross-examine the experts or customers and to lead their own evidence; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.The impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019 are required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the AAR for fresh consideration 'after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence.'The AAR is directed to allow cross-examination and the production of additional evidence by either party, and to dispose of the matter expeditiously by 31 December 2025. RATIONALE: The Court applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, emphasizing that evidence must be 'tested by cross-examination' and parties must have 'full opportunity to place their evidence' in proceedings before quasi-judicial authorities such as the AAR and AAAR.The Court noted that the original AAR order was passed without the Petitioner having produced the Chartered Engineer's and Customer's Certificates, and the Respondents had not tendered evidence either at that stage, making the introduction of such evidence at the appellate stage procedurally irregular.The Court rejected the Respondents' contention that the evidence should not be considered without an opportunity to rebut, holding that the proper course is to remand the matter to the AAR to allow both parties to lead and test evidence, including cross-examination and expert testimony.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the judgment reiterates established legal standards on evidence and procedural fairness in advance ruling proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
