TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of more than Rs. 9.40 Crores under the statutory provisions. Despite the availability of an alternate remedy, the 1st respondent herein approached the writ court alleging a serious infraction of the principles of natural justice, insofar as there was a failure to accede to his request for cross-examination of persons, whose statements were obtained during the enquiry and which were relied upon by the authority while passing the order of penalty. 3. The appellants contended before the learned Single Judge that under the scheme of the CGST Act, there is no mandate for granting permission to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were obtained by the proper officer in a proceedings for imposition of tax. However, the learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petition, took the view that the principles of natural justice had been violated since the authorities had denied the right to cross-examine the persons, who had given statements against the writ petitioner. While doing so, the learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [(2016) 15 SCC 785]. 4. In the appeal b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petition, despite the availability of an alternate remedy. Paragraph 15 of the said decision is extracted as under: "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. Of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 Titaghur Paper Mills case Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. When strong reliance is placed on the said decision, the appellants conveniently omitted to notice the fact that the Sea Customs Act, 1878 stood repealed on promulgation of Customs Act, 1962, where the provision governing procedure for adjudication is Section 122 which provides for an opportunity for hearing and therefore does not exclude the principles of natural justice. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Kanungo & Co has to be understood as one rendered in the facts of that case and cannot have universal application in view of the subsequent enactment. Moreover, the extent of the application of principles of natural justice has to be construed in the context of a procedure prescribed under a particular enactment. 14. Turning to facts, it can be seen that the proper officer recorded the statements of the persons who had deposed against the assessee and their statements were relied on by the proper officer in arriving at a tentative finding against the petitioner. Thus, the entire basis for the formation of an opinion of guilt against the petitioner was the statements of third parties re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considering the question in the context of verification of a caste certificate by the scrutiny committee constituted under the State law to go into the caste status of a particular employee. The Court held that no extension of an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses would vitiate the decision of the scrutiny committee, since the same was violative of the principles of natural justice. 18. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Ajay Saraogi v. Union of India [2024 (136) GSTR 330], while considering the question as to whether the right of cross-examination is imbibed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 held that the Customs Act, 1962 does not prohibit the application of the principles of natural justice. 19. In Union of India & Another v. Tulsiram Patel [1985 (3) SCC 398] a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the scope of the principles of natural justice and held that a Rule framed under Article 309 cannot altogether exclude the principles of natural justice and if it does, then it is ultra vires. 20. We must note that the Supreme Court held as above despite the second proviso to Article 311(2) being deleted by the Constitution (Forty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have evolved over a period of time and been continuously refined through the process of expansive judicial interpretation. H. THE TWIN ANCHORS: NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA AND AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM 37. The twin anchors on which the principles of natural justice rest in the judicial process, whether quasijudicial or administrative in nature, are Nemo Judex In Causa Sua, i.e., no person shall be a judge in his own cause as justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done and Audi Alteram Partem, i.e. a person affected by a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative action must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before any decision is taken. 38. How deeply have Courts internalised and incorporated the principles of natural justice into the Constitution can be perceived from the seven Judge Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248. In this case, where a challenge was laid to the order of impounding the passport of the Appellant, which was silent on the reasons for such an action and the Respondent-State had declined to furnish the reason therefor, it was held that life and liberty of a person cannot be restricte....