2026 (2) TMI 387 - HC - GST

Access to seized electronic evidence and documents remanded for supply and fresh adjudication, with opportunity to respond.

Right to access seized documents and electronic evidence requires supply of seized material before adjudication; because the petitioner lacked a ... Right to access seized documents and electronic evidence - principles of natural justice / right to fair hearing - adjudication u/s 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - treatment of impugned order as an additional show cause notice - remand for fresh adjudication upon supply of seized material - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the documents and the CPU that had been seized from the custody of the petitioner have not yet been returned to the petitioner. There is sufficient force in the contention of the petitioner that without the documents and records the petitioner would also not be in a position to prefer a proper appeal before the appellate authority. Since, the petitioner has not got any meaningful opportunity of participating in the hearing before the proper officer, the order impugned shall be treated as an additional show cause notice. The petitioner shall not be entitled to file a composite reply to the show cause notice earlier issued to the petitioner as well as the additional show cause notice (i.e. the impugned order dated 18th December, 2024 in terms of this order) within a period of two weeks from the date when the petitioner receives the seized documents or copies thereof and the seized CPU. The petitioner shall approach the proper officer by way of an appropriate application as indicated in the notice dated January 6, 2026 (Annexure R/10 at page 37) of the report in the form of an affidavit within a week from date. Upon the petitioner so approaching the proper officer shall makeover the seized documents (or copies thereof) and the seized CPU to the petitioner within two days thereafter. The proper officer shall thereafter conclude the proceedings by passing appropriate orders upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law. It is clarified that this court has not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are left open to the adjudicating authority. The writ petition being WPA stands disposed of with the above observations. Issues: Whether the order dated 18.12.2024 passed under Section 74 of the Act of 2017 can be sustained when the assessee was not provided copies of seized documents and the seized CPU and was thus deprived of a meaningful opportunity of personal hearing.Analysis: The Court examined whether the adjudication complied with principles of natural justice by affording the assessee access to seized records and a meaningful personal hearing before confirming demand under Section 74. The factual matrix shows seizure of documents and the CPU, repeated requests by the assessee for copies and return of the CPU, and that those materials were not returned prior to conclusion of the adjudication. The respondents' affidavit and annexed correspondence indicate instructions for the assessee to approach the proper officer to obtain seized material, and the respondents contend opportunities were afforded; however, the record establishes that the seized items were not actually made available to the assessee for effective participation in the proceedings. The Court considered the effect of proceeding to confirm demand without allowing the assessee to inspect or use the seized records, and whether such procedure precluded a fair opportunity to frame defence and to prefer an effective appeal.Conclusion: The impugned order dated 18.12.2024 is set aside for lack of a meaningful opportunity of hearing owing to non-provision of seized documents and the CPU. The impugned order shall be treated as an additional show cause notice and the assessee shall be permitted to obtain the seized documents and CPU and file a consolidated reply within two weeks of receipt; the proper officer shall furnish the seized material on application and afford an opportunity of hearing before concluding proceedings. All points on merits are left open to the adjudicating authority.