Case Law Details
Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
SC Allows GST Appeals Despite Missing Seized Files Because Issue Can Be Examined by Appellate Authority; SC Declines to Interfere in GST Assessment Proceedings Because Alternative Appeal Remedy Exists; SC Says Missing GST Seized Files Issue Must Be Raised Before Appellate Authority; SC Upholds Continuation of GST Proceedings Because Department Agreed Not to Rely on Missing Files.
In, the dispute arose from GST assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the assessment years 2019-20 to 2023-24 following a departmental search and seizure operation conducted on 26.12.2023. During the search, several files and documents were seized by the tax authorities. The petitioner alleged that 14 seized files containing important records such as invoices and related documents had gone missing while in the custody of the Department.
Before the Telangana High Court, the petitioner challenged the Department’s continuation of adjudication proceedings under Section 74 of the GST Act despite the alleged non-availability of the seized files. The petitioner contended that without copies of the missing documents, it was unable to submit a detailed and effective reply to the show cause notices and could not properly defend itself against allegations of fraudulent transactions and bogus invoices. The petitioner also argued that proceeding with adjudication without supplying the missing documents violated principles of fair opportunity and Section 67(5) of the GST Act.
The High Court examined earlier proceedings involving the same petitioner and referred to the Panchnama listing the seized files. It recorded that the petitioner had already received copies of several seized files and that the dispute was confined mainly to certain “office files” and other documents which were stated to be missing. The State Tax Department informed the Court that scanned copies of some missing documents were available and had already been supplied to the petitioner. It was further stated on instructions that the original missing files would not be relied upon in the adjudication proceedings for the relevant assessment years.
Taking note of this assurance, the Telangana High Court held that the petitioner’s grievance regarding reliance upon missing original documents stood adequately addressed. The Court observed that the adjudication proceedings could continue on the basis of other available materials, provided the petitioner was granted due opportunity to submit replies and participate in hearings in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana GST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without interfering with the assessment proceedings.
The matter was thereafter carried to the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner reiterated the contention that the loss of the 14 seized files by the Department had caused serious prejudice during the assessment proceedings because those documents allegedly contained evidence necessary to rebut the allegations of bogus transactions.
The Supreme Court noted that final assessment orders had already been passed for all the relevant assessment years. It recorded that the assessment order for 2018-19 had been passed on 30.12.2025 and had separately been challenged before the High Court, which had relegated the petitioner to the alternative statutory remedy. The Court further noted that assessment orders for 2019-20 and the remaining years had also been passed subsequently.
The Department argued before the Supreme Court that the missing files were not relevant to the assessment proceedings and that none of the documents from those files had been relied upon while passing the assessment orders. In view of the fact that final assessment orders had already been issued, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner’s remedy now lay in filing statutory appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy and permitted the filing of appeals against each assessment order upon payment of a pre-deposit of 5% of the total principal tax amount. The Court granted four weeks’ time to file such appeals.
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that the petitioner would remain free to raise the issue regarding the loss of the 14 files and the alleged prejudice caused thereby before the appellate authority. The Court directed the appellate authority to independently examine all relevant aspects and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition and connected applications were accordingly disposed of.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Bengal Cold Rollers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Telangana High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. We heard Mr. Balbir Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) and Mr. N. Venkataraman, the learned A.S.G appearing for the respondent(s) along with the officers of the Department, namely, Ms. Kranthi Boda, Asst. Commissioner, Ms. Deepa Reddy, Addl. Commissioner, Ms. Vasavi Jagannath, Addl. Commissioner and Mr. T.V. Prasad, Deputy State Tax Officer.
2. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana dated 11.03.2026 in Writ Petition No.6668/2026 by which the Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner herein came to be disposed of.
3. The petitioner prayed for the following before the High Court:-
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the high handed action of the 1st Respondent in issuing Reminder Notice cum Personal Hearing Dt. 26.2.2026 insisting petitioner to proceed with the adjudication for assessments initiated under show cause notices for the year 2019-20, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023, 2023-24 (Upto Dec 23) without considering petitioners representations dt. 19.2.2026 and 23.2.2026, ignoring petitioners contention of not furnishing the seized documents of missing files to enable the petitioner to submit detailed and effective reply for proper, effective and unbiased adjudication, and fair opportunity of hearing in the interest of justice, and petitioners request to keep the proceedings in abeyance until disposal of I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2025 in W.P.No.35740 of 2025 and W.P.No. 39343 of 2025, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provision Sec. 67 (5) of GST Act,2017, and consequently direct the respondents to drop all subsequent proceedings initiated against the petitioner U/Sec. 74 of the GST Act, 2017, on failure to furnish all the documents including the 14 subject missing files which were seized on 26.12.2023 which are admittedly not available with the respondent no.1 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
It is also just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Reminder Notice cum Personal Hearing Dt. 26.2.2026 issued by the respondent no.1 including recovery proceedings against the petitioner if any, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
4. To put it briefly, the petitioner went before the High Court redressing the grievance that as the respondents, i.e., the Department failed to furnish the copies of the seized documents forming part of the missing files it was unable to submit a detailed and effective reply to the show cause notices.
5. The case of the petitioner before the High Court was that when search was undertaken by the Officers of the Department, 14 files were seized from the office premises of the petitioner. These 14 files, according to the petitioner contained important documents like invoices, etc. and in the absence of copies of those documents, it was difficult for him to establish that the allegations levelled by the Department of fraudulent transactions or bogus invoices were baseless.
6. It appears that for the Assessment Year 2018-2019, the final assessment order came to be passed on 30.12.2025. This order was made a subject matter of challenge by way of Writ Petition No.8587/2026 before the High Court. This petition was disposed of, relegating the petitioner to avail appropriate alternate remedy.
7. Insofar as the Assessment Year 2019-2020 is concerned, the final assessment order came to be passed on 28.03.2026 and for the remaining Assessment Years, the order came to be passed on 22.04.2026. In short, the position today is that final orders of assessment have been passed by the competent authority with respect to the liability of the petitioner as alleged. We only need to consider whether the petitioner could be said to be seriously prejudiced in the course of assessment proceedings in the absence of the 14 files which have gone missing.
8. As noted aforesaid, the case of the petitioner is that if he would have been in possession of the 14 files, he could have established his case accordingly whereas the case of the Department is that these 14 files are even otherwise not relevant and not a single document of those 14 files have been relied upon in the assessment proceedings.
9. The petitioner has reached a stage wherein it is now left with no other option but to prefer statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
10. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of preferring statutory appeals with respect to each of the assessment orders before the appellate authority after a pre-deposit of 5% of the total principal tax amount.
11. We grant four weeks’ time to the petitioner to prefer appropriate appeals with pre-deposit @ 5% of the principal tax amount.
12. Insofar as the principal argument canvassed by Mr. Balbir Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner with respect to the 14 files being lost by the Department thereby causing serious prejudice to his client, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise this contention before the appellate authority in accordance with law.
13. The appellate authority shall look into all the relevant aspects of the matter and take an appropriate decision in this regard without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order before us.
14. With the aforesaid, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
SLP (C) No.35306/2025
1. In view of the order passed in SLP (C) No.12390/2026, this petition also stand disposed of.
2. Pending application(s), if any, including application for intervention also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
