Second petition dismissed as not maintainable; relief already granted earlier, petition mala fide; Rs.2,00,000 costs payable within four weeks

The HC dismissed the second petition as not maintainable, holding the relief sought (release/provision of seized originals and leave to file detailed reply) had already been granted by the SC and no fresh cause of action was shown. The court found the claim that statutory documents must be returned to petitioner baseless, noted the respondents relied on 11 witnesses whose evidence had been produced and cross-examined, and deemed the petition mala fide and intended to stall adjudication. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,00,000 payable to respondent within four weeks.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a writ under Article 226 is maintainable when the petitioner seeks reliefs identical to those already granted by this Court and the Supreme Court without any fresh cause of action or allegation of non-compliance.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to certified/original copies of documents and reports seized during searches that the department contends were not part of the panchnama or were relied upon/not relied upon in the show-cause notices.

3. Whether the petitioner has a right to compel production and cross-examination of officers whose statements were relied upon in the show-cause notices, particularly officers posted for round-the-clock physical duty at the factory.

4. Whether documents allegedly maintained/produced by departmental officers (e.g., Range Office records) are departmental records or records the registered person is required to maintain under Section 35 CGST and Rule 56 CGST Rules, and the consequences for entitlement to their return/copies.

5. Whether the petition is instituted with mala fide intention to delay adjudication and whether costs should be imposed.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of writ under Article 226 when identical reliefs already granted

Legal framework: Article 226 permits High Court writs for enforcement of rights; principle against multiplicity of litigation and requirement of fresh cause of action for successive petitions is recognised in law.

Precedent treatment: No specific precedent cited in the judgment; the Court applied established principles of res judicata/abuse of process by reference to the facts and orders already made by this Court and the Supreme Court.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the instant petition seeks identical reliefs already granted by this Court on 20.05.2024 and by the Supreme Court (orders of 27.01.2025 and 04.04.2025), with no fresh facts or allegation of non-compliance. There is no disclosed cause of action arising after compliance with those orders. The petition was therefore held to be not maintainable as a means to relitigate the same reliefs and to stall completion of adjudication.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A successive writ seeking identical reliefs already granted, absent new cause of action or non-compliance, is not maintainable and may amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: Petition dismissed as not maintainable on grounds of duplicative relief and absence of fresh cause of action (ratio).

Issue 2: Entitlement to seized documents and certified copies

Legal framework: Administrative directions by higher courts to return or provide copies of seized material can govern departmental conduct; entitlement to seized material depends on whether documents form part of panchnama or have been relied upon in show-cause notices and on compliance with prior judicial directions.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the fact of prior judicial orders (High Court and Supreme Court) rather than external authority; no precedent was specially followed or distinguished on points of evidentiary entitlement.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that earlier orders directed the department to hand over originals/certified copies of specified files (Files 1-10 to be handed over; files 11-13 certified copies where originals lost). The present petition seeks an expanded list of reports and statements that were not shown to be part of the panchnama or demonstrably withheld in breach of the prior orders. The respondents asserted that relied and non-relied documents had been supplied and that certain demanded documents were not part of the panchnama. The Court accepted the respondents' position and found no new non-compliance warranting further relief.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where prior judicial directions have been complied with and no fresh non-compliance is pleaded, a petitioner cannot relitigate entitlement to additional seized material absent demonstration that such records were part of the seizure/panchnama or otherwise ordered to be supplied (ratio).

Conclusion: No further direction to supply additional documents; relief denied as repetitive and unsupported by new facts (ratio).

Issue 3: Right to cross-examine officers whose statements were relied upon in the show-cause notices

Legal framework: Principles of natural justice - right to fair opportunity, personal hearing and to cross-examine witnesses whose testimony is relied upon in adjudicatory proceedings - subject to procedural stage and rules of evidence applicable to quasi-judicial tax proceedings.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the factual record of which witnesses were produced and whether cross-examination was already permitted; no separate authority cited.

Interpretation and reasoning: The respondents indicated that 11 witnesses whose statements were relied upon in SCNs were produced in adjudication and were cross-examined by the petitioner. The petitioner did not dispute this assertion. The Court therefore concluded that the claim for further cross-examination (of 76 officers or of officers stationed round-the-clock) was unfounded, not shown to be denied, and formed part of repetitive litigation aimed at impeding adjudication unique to the petitioner.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a petitioner has been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses relied upon in show-cause notices and does not demonstrate denial of that opportunity, a fresh writ seeking that relief is unfounded (ratio).

Conclusion: No entitlement to additional cross-examination relief; claim rejected as already addressed in adjudication (ratio).

Issue 4: Nature of factory records and departmental records - obligations under Section 35 and Rule 56 CGST

Legal framework: Section 35 CGST imposes duty on every registered person to maintain true and correct accounts at principal place of business (production, stock, supplies, input tax credit, etc.). Rule 56 CGST Rules prescribes maintenance of records by registered persons. Administrative circulars may describe duties of sector/range officers but do not supplant statutory obligations.

Precedent treatment: No judicial authorities were cited; the Court applied statutory obligations to distinguish departmental role from taxpayer record-keeping duties.

Interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner contended that certain statutory documents were prepared by Excise/Range officers and thus should be departmental records to be returned. The Court analysed the circular relied upon and observed that the duties clause did not displace the statutory obligation under Section 35 and Rule 56 to maintain accounts by the registered person. The Court held the contention baseless: statutory records are the responsibility of the registered person and not ipso facto departmental records to be handed back merely because officers observed or noted them.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Statutory obligation under Section 35 and Rule 56 to maintain accounts rests on the registered person; administrative circulars do not convert taxpayer records into departmental records for purposes of compulsory return to the taxpayer (ratio).

Conclusion: Claim that officers prepared statutory documents and thus the department must return them rejected; records remain primarily the registered person's responsibility (ratio).

Issue 5: Abuse of process, mala fide intention to delay adjudication, and imposition of costs

Legal framework: Courts may dismiss writs brought mala fide or for the purpose of delaying adjudication and may impose costs as deterrence for abuse of process.

Precedent treatment: No specific precedent was relied upon; the Court applied general principles governing dismissal for abuse and awarding costs.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the petition was filed to "install" adjudication proceedings pending against many noticees and to prevent final order in the petitioner's case alone (interim order had delayed only this petitioner). The absence of fresh cause of action and prior compliance by the department supported the inference of mala fides. Considering the circumstances, the Court imposed costs to penalise and deter such conduct.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A writ filed with mala fide intention to delay adjudication and to single out a litigant for special interim relief may be dismissed and costs awarded (ratio).

Conclusion: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,00,000 payable by petitioner within four weeks (ratio).

---