Sai Auto Mobiles Vs Commissioner Central Goods Service Tax And Central Excise And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court set aside an order dated 24.03.2026 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 after finding that the petitioner had not been supplied copies of the relied upon documents (RUDs) before confirmation of the demand. The petitioner contended that a specific application seeking copies of the RUDs had been submitted on 16.01.2026, but neither was the application rejected nor were the documents supplied. The petitioner also argued that certain double entries appearing in its accounts had been explained through its reply, but that explanation had not been considered by the adjudicating authority.
The Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of the statutory appellate remedy. However, when the Court sought instructions on whether the RUDs had actually been supplied, no satisfactory instructions were produced.
The Court observed that when a demand is proposed on the basis of relied upon documents, the noticee’s ability to file a complete reply and effectively contest the proposed demand depends on access to those documents. Unless exceptional circumstances exist, copies of such RUDs must ordinarily be supplied before a demand is confirmed. Since no material was produced to establish that the documents had been provided and there were specific pleadings asserting non-supply, the Court inferred that the petitioner had not been furnished copies of the RUDs before the adjudication order was passed.
