2026-VIL-186-CAL
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-186-CAL

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Reliance on Undisclosed Evidence and Denial of Cross-examination – Demand for reversal of credit on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate movement of goods - The Proper Officer, while passing the order, relied heavily on statements and declarations made by vehicle owners, but failed to provide these statements to the petitioner or allow an opportunity for cross-examination - Whether an adjudication order based on adverse third-party statements is sustainable when the taxpayer is denied access to such evidence and the right to cross-examine the witnesses - HELD - It is a settled principle of law that if any material or statement is relied upon by a quasi-judicial authority for drawing an adverse conclusion against a person, that person must be afforded a fair opportunity to rebut the same. By failing to provide the statements of the vehicle owners and denying the petitioner the right to cross-examine them, the Proper Officer committed a patent violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the order vulnerable and prone to interference - The right to rebut adverse evidence is fundamental to fair adjudication. The impugned adjudication order is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication with specific directions to provide the witness statements and allow cross-examination if such evidence is to be relied upon – The petition is disposed of - Non-consideration of Evidence and Lack of Reasoned Order - Discharge of Burden regarding Movement of Goods - During the adjudication process, the Proper Officer doubted the movement of goods. The officer concluded that the movement was not proven due to the absence of specific documents like weighment slips or transportation payment reflections, without addressing the documents actually submitted - HELD - The petitioner had produced a "tome of documents" to establish the authenticity of the transactions. It was incumbent upon the Proper Officer to bestow reasoning as to why these documents were not reliable, acceptable, or sufficient. The order impugned does not show how the documents that have been furnished by the petitioner have been considered and why the said documents are not sufficient for the petitioner to discharge his burden as regards movement of goods - The failure to spend even a single line of reasoning on why the submitted evidence was rejected, coupled with translating "doubt" into a firm conclusion without analysis, makes the order infirm and perverse. The lack of reasons and non-consideration of relevant evidence necessitates judicial intervention - The order is quashed and the Proper Officer was directed to conduct a fresh hearing considering all documents on record.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?