TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es ORDER PER: JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in all the present writ petitions, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and disposal of all the present petitions, facts of Writ Petition No.12375 of 2025 are taken. 2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality, validity and propriety of order-in-original dated 05.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 / Joint Commissioner, Central G.S.T. and Excise, Indore (M.P.), whereby the demand of GST amounting to Rs. 151,64,38,832/- (CGST- Rs. 75,82,19,416/- and SGST- 75,82,19,416/-) and Compensation Cess amounting to Rs. 1794,58,34,178/ has been confirmed against the petitioner without providing proper opportunity to defend its case. 3. The petitioner / M/s. Dabang Dunia Publications Private Limited, is a company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (now governed by the Companies Act, 2013). The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the business of printing, publishing, and reproduction of recorded media. It is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore this Court seeking similar reliefs, which was allowed by order dated 20.05.2024, directing return of documents and permitting cross-examination. The said order attained finality upon dismissal of the review petition on 30.08.2024 and was not interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which further directed return of non-relied upon documents to enable filing of reply. 7. Despite the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, the respondents failed to extend the same reliefs to the petitioner, notwithstanding repeated representations made by the petitioner during the pendency of proceedings. The adjudicating authority, while acknowledging such requests, rejected the same on the ground that documentary evidence was sufficient and that cross-examination was not required. It is the petitioner's case that the adjudicating authority proceeded to pass the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice by denying access to relevant documents and the right to cross-examine witnesses. It is further contended that the adjudication against the petitioner has been concluded even in the absence of any final determination against the principal noticee, namely M/s Elora Tobacco, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2016) 15 SCC 785, Dharmpal Satyapal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 519, MP State Agro Industries Development Corporation and Anor. Vs. Jahan Khan, AIR 2007 SC 3153, and judgment passed by this Court in the case of Alok Kumar Choubey Vs. State of MP passed in WP No.1874/2019. 13. They further argued that the adjudicatory authority while passing the impugned order had relied on the circular issued by CBIC dated 10.03.2017 would not apply to the case of the petitioners as the same was prior to coming into effect of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 w.e.f 01.07.2017. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the adjudicatory authority has rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners regarding applicability of the judgment passed in the case of Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. (supra) as the same was not in respect of one of the noticees because the same was the judgment in personam and not the judgment in rem. They further argued that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy of appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged." 16. We are inclined to entertain this petition on two grounds:- (i) The question involved is that whether the order passed in respect of one of the noticees of the same notice i.e. M/s Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. would apply to the present case or not ? (ii) Whether the denial of cross-examination is in violation of principle of natural justice or not ? 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order with careful scanning. We find distinguishing case of the petitioner, the following reasons have been given by the adjudicating authority:- "However, M/s Elora Tobacco Company Ltd. was the sole petitioner in the above referred Writ Petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court M.P. Bench at Indore, and there was no specific Order affecting the other 21 Noticees in the SCN dated 08.06.2022. The Hon'ble High Court M.P. Bench at Indore has neither addressed regarding the adjudication of these other 21 Noticees nor issued any Stay Order. Thus, other 21 Noticees were not entitled to benefit of Stay period as well as other directions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to be cited by the department and also a direction to return all unrelied documents was accepted and the petition was allowed upholding the notices right to seek return of unrelied documents and also to give right to cross-examine and the similar notice was quashed and the matter was sent back to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh by giving right of cross-examine and return all unrelied documents. Then the quasi judicial authority was wholly unjustified in holding that the said order would not be applicable to the case of other notices. We are of the view that such a direction was facet of 'principle of natural justice' which ought to have been followed by quasi judicial authority. 20. We do not accept the reasoning given by the assessing authority that the order passed by this Court in the case of Elora (supra) was only in respect of one of the noticee and not in respect of other noticees. Even otherwise, the judicial authority is bound to follow the doctrine of Judicial Discipline and Properity. Once the High Court has held in respect of one of the noticee for giving opportunity of cross-examine and also return of the documents, the authority ought to have follo....