Case Law Details
T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excis (Madras High Court)
The issue under consideration is whether non furnishing of scrutiny report to the assessee and then passing an adverse order based on the said scrutiny report is justified in law?
High Court states that, they appreciate the contention of the learned standing counsel that the adjudication process cannot be stalled. But then, in the case on hand, the petitioner’s demand is for the supply of a copy of the Scrutiny report prepared by the third respondent. It is admitted in the counter affidavit itself that verification exercise was undertaken. HC posed a specific question to the learned Standing Counsel as to whether there is such a report and whether the first respondent proposes to rely on the same. The answer is in the affirmative, then HC cannot agree with the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the verification exercise undertaken by the third respondent is an integral part of the adjudication process. It cannot be. The first respondent is an independent adjudicating authority. He cannot delegate his adjudicating power to any one. It is true that the decision of the Honourable Division Bench appears to in favour of the Department. But then, in that case, demand for supply of relied-on documents was made at the show cause notice stage itself. The case on hand is having a different flavour. The Scrutiny report was prepared after the submission of interim reply to the show cause notice. If the report in question is not furnished to the petitioner and if an adverse order based on the said report is passed, then the adjudication would be set aside on that sole ground. Therefore, by furnishing a copy of the report, the department is not going to suffer any prejudice, on the other hand, it will avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The first respondent is directed to make available the Scrutiny report submitted by the third respondent to the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
