Natural justice in tax adjudication requires disclosure of unrelied material and cross-examination where third-party statements are relied on.

A tax adjudication based on third-party statements and seized material was held vulnerable where unrelied documents were not furnished and cross-examination was denied, as these omissions breached natural justice and justified writ interference despite the availability of an appellate remedy. The authority was also bound, as a matter of judicial discipline, to apply the same procedural directions already recognised for similarly situated noticees, so the contrary view in the impugned order could not stand. A separate petition failed because no foundational request for documents or cross-examination was shown, and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was entertainable despite availability of an appellate remedy, and whether denial of unrelied documents and cross-examination vitiated the adjudication. (ii) Whether the earlier order in the connected matter was binding on the other noticees and whether the impugned adjudication could be sustained. (iii) Whether WP No. 17609 of 2025 disclosed any ground for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was entertainable despite availability of an appellate remedy, and whether denial of unrelied documents and cross-examination vitiated the adjudication.

Analysis: The availability of an appeal did not create an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction where there was a violation of natural justice. The adjudication proceeded on statements and documents without furnishing the unrelied material and without granting cross-examination, despite such relief having been recognised in the connected matter. The denial of these procedural safeguards went to the fairness of the adjudication and attracted writ interference.

Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and the adjudication was vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier order in the connected matter was binding on the other noticees and whether the impugned adjudication could be sustained.

Analysis: The earlier order was treated as laying down a procedural entitlement concerning return of unrelied documents and cross-examination. The distinction sought to be drawn between a judgment in rem and a judgment in personam was rejected in the context of a common notice and identical procedural grievance. Judicial discipline required the quasi-judicial authority to follow the same course for similarly placed noticees, and the contrary view taken in the impugned order was not sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned adjudication could not be sustained insofar as it denied the benefit of the earlier procedural directions to similarly placed noticees.

Issue (iii): Whether WP No. 17609 of 2025 disclosed any ground for interference.

Analysis: No material was shown that the petitioner in that petition had appeared before the adjudicating authority or sought return of unrelied documents or cross-examination. In the absence of such foundational steps, no separate ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: WP No. 17609 of 2025 was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The common adjudication was set aside for the petitioners who had demonstrated denial of procedural fairness, while one petition failed for want of factual foundation; the matters were otherwise concluded by remand or dismissal as the case may be.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax adjudication rests on third-party statements and seized material, denial of unrelied documents and denial of cross-examination amounts to breach of natural justice, and a quasi-judicial authority must follow binding procedural directions in similarly situated cases in observance of judicial discipline.

---