2025 (12) TMI 442 - SCH - GST

Second writ petition over show cause notice dismissed as mala fide attempt to delay adjudication; prior cross-examination sufficient

M/s. Elora Tobacco Company Limited Versus Union of India & Ors.

SC dismissed the petitioner's second writ petition challenging adjudication proceedings arising from a show cause notice. The petitioner sought release of ... Maintainability of second petition - Seeking to release/ provide the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted and not relied upon in the SCN - permission to submit detailed reply within a period of 30 (Thirty) days from the release/ provision of the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent - direction to allow the Petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon in the show cause notices upon release/ provision of the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent - It was held by High Court that 'the respondents have relied on the statements of 11 witnesses in the SCN and all have been produced in the adjudication proceedings and all have been cross examined by the petitioner, this petition is absolutely misconceived and filed with a malafide intention to install the adjudication of the show cause notice proceedings.' HELD THAT:- There are no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order. This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides and examining the show cause notice, relevant statutory provisions, and pleadings, upheld the High Court's impugned order. It held that 'no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court,' and consequently dismissed the petition. The Court directed that adjudication of the show cause notice should proceed expeditiously and strictly 'in accordance with law,' clarifying that all contentions available to the parties remain open to be urged before the Adjudicating Authority. The Court also took note of para 15.7.8 of the show cause notice, which records that the investigation period (01.07.2017 to 15.06.2020) involved about 76 officers at different levels, and that a 'separate enquiry has been recommended' regarding whether these officers 'discharged their duty appropriately as envisaged in the Trade Notice.' The Court 'expect[ed] the Department to undertake a thorough inquiry' and carry it to its 'logical conclusion.' Pending applications were disposed of.