TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atural justice. Apart from the above, a specific ground was raised in the writ petition, to the effect that, the proceedings under Sec. 74 were initiated for multiple assessment years as a 'block assessment' whereas, the scheme of the Act contemplate only for a particular tax period. Thus, the intervention of this Court is sought under Article 226 of Constitution of India, instead of invoking the statutory remedy of appeal. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for considering the issues involved in this writ petition are as follows: 2.1. The 1st petitioner is a limited liability partnership engaged in the business of wholesale jewellery. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the Chairman and Managing Partner of the 1st petitioner firm. On 11.12.2019, the premises of the 1st petitioner was searched by the Department of GST and in the said process, the entire stock-in-trade kept in display counter and other places, consisting of 14,633.65 grams of ornaments 1,430.42 grams of gold pieces along with books documents, computer system and other devices etc. were seized, invoking the powers under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act. The statement of the 2nd petitioner, the Chairman, was recorde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondents. 5. The learned Senior Counsel specifically contended that, despite the fact that, the 1st petitioner had specifically requested for an opportunity to cross-examine the persons, whose statements were relied on in the show cause notice, instead of passing a separate order on the said request, the order rejecting the said request was passed only along with the final adjudicating order namely, Ext. P4 and therefore, the 1st petitioner was deprived of a proper opportunity to challenge the said order before the finalization of the proceedings. Apart from the above, the learned Senior Counsel brought to the attention of this Court, the reasons stated by the 1st respondent in Ext. P4, while rejecting the request for cross-examination as contemplated in Clause 12.11 of the order. It was pointed out that, the reasons cited were that, the statements, which were relied on, were not retracted by the persons concerned, and that the statements of those witnesses were corroborated with other documents as well. 6. Apart from the above, in Ext. P4, it is also stated that, the persons whose cross-examination was sought, are the employees of the 1st petitioner and hence, an appre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st petitioner, there are other evidence, which would amply prove the charges against the 1st petitioner and therefore, the denial of the cross-examination of the said persons by itself, cannot be a reason to interfere in Ext. P4 order. Apart from the above, it is also pointed out that, as far as the challenge raised against Ext. P4 is concerned, the same basically arises from disputed questions of fact and since there is an effective appellate remedy provided against Ext. P4, this Court need not invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and instead, it is for the petitioners to invoke the statutory remedies before the appropriate forum to get the factual disputes, as referred to above, resolved. 8. I have carefully gone through the records and considered the contentions raised from both sides. One of the crucial contentions raised by the petitioners, is in relation to the order passed for multiple assessment years, as a block period. In ground (J) of the writ petition, a specific ground in this regard has been taken, by stating that, the assessment should have been completed based on the tax period as defined under Section 2(106) of the CGST Act, instead....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llate remedy may not be effective. 11. After carefully going through the records, I find some merits in the said submission. This is particularly because, going by the reasons in Ext. P4, for rejecting the request for cross-examination of the witnesses mentioned in Ext. P4, those appear to be not at all convincing. One of the reasons stated was that, the persons, whose statements were relied on, have not retracted from their statements. However, the question whether the witness concerned has retracted from the statement or not, is not a relevant criteria while determining the question as to whether, an opportunity has to be granted for cross-examination or not. The purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of the statement of the witnesses and in order to do the same, the person seeking cross-examination should get an opportunity to discredit the said witnesses. The same can only be done by cross-examining such persons. Therefore, even if the persons concerned have not retracted from the statements, that by itself would not preclude the noticee against whom proceedings are initiated, from challenging those statements, by attempting to discredit the said witness throug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lied upon documents. Thus, it is also one indication that, the statement of those witnesses were relied on and hence cross-examination ought to have been granted. Moreover, in Ext. P4, while rejecting the opportunity to cross-examine, the respondents apprehended that, by providing cross-examination of those individuals, no purpose would be served, as it would be biased and skewed in favour of the first petitioner. However, such an impression could not have been drawn, merely because of the reason that the 1st petitioner is seeking a cross-examination of those witnesses. The question as to whether the statement that is brought out in cross-examination is biased or not, is a matter to be considered, upon evaluating the statement that is elicited in such cross-examination and under no circumstances, that cannot be a ground to deny the opportunity to cross-examination as such. Of course, it is true that in all cases, it is not necessary that the cross-examination should be provided to the party concerned, merely because it was asked for. It is for the adjudicating authority to take a reasonable decision as to whether it is to be granted or not. In case, the opportunity is denied, sound....