2025 (7) TMI 1326 - HC - GST

Dismissal of appeal - Petitioner s entire written submissions including the Chartered Engineer s and Customer s Certificate were not considered in the order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned orders dated 8 June 2018 17 February 2019 and 4 November 2019 are required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the AAR for fresh consideration after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. When the AAR issued its order dated 8 June 2018 neither the Chartered Engineer s Certificate nor the Customer s certificate had been filed. Possibly because the Petitioner did not produce any such evidence even the Respondents did not rely upon or tender any evidence before the AAR. Such evidence was sought to be produced for the first time before the Appellate Authority and that too with the written submissions. The procedural irregularities apart the Appellate Authority should not have considered this evidence without offering the Respondents an opportunity to counter such evidence inter alia by cross-examining the experts / customers and leading their own evidence in the matter. Even this Court is reluctant and considers it unsafe to rely upon the evidence that was enclosed along with the written submissions before the Appellate Authority for deciding this petition particularly since this evidence was untested by cross-examination and even the Respondents did not have an opportunity of leading their own evidence in the matter - it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the AAR for fresh consideration in accordance with law and on its own merits. Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the Chartered Engineer's Certificate and Customer's Certificates submitted by the Petitioner.Whether evidence submitted for the first time before the Appellate Authority can be considered without providing the opposing parties an opportunity to cross-examine and lead rebuttal evidence.Whether the impugned orders require interference on grounds of procedural irregularity and failure to afford a fair opportunity to lead and test evidence.Whether the matter should be remanded to the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) for fresh consideration allowing both parties to lead evidence and cross-examination.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Appellate Authority's orders dated 17 February 2019 and 4 November 2019 were set aside as the crucial portions of the Chartered Engineer's Certificate and Customer's Certificates were either not considered or considered without proper opportunity to the Respondents, rendering the impugned orders "vitiated" and warranting interference.Evidence produced for the first time before the Appellate Authority cannot be considered without giving the Respondents an opportunity to cross-examine the experts or customers and to lead their own evidence; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.The impugned orders dated 8 June 2018, 17 February 2019, and 4 November 2019 are required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the AAR for fresh consideration "after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence."The AAR is directed to allow cross-examination and the production of additional evidence by either party, and to dispose of the matter expeditiously by 31 December 2025.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, emphasizing that evidence must be "tested by cross-examination" and parties must have "full opportunity to place their evidence" in proceedings before quasi-judicial authorities such as the AAR and AAAR.The Court noted that the original AAR order was passed without the Petitioner having produced the Chartered Engineer's and Customer's Certificates, and the Respondents had not tendered evidence either at that stage, making the introduction of such evidence at the appellate stage procedurally irregular.The Court rejected the Respondents' contention that the evidence should not be considered without an opportunity to rebut, holding that the proper course is to remand the matter to the AAR to allow both parties to lead and test evidence, including cross-examination and expert testimony.No dissent or doctrinal shift was indicated; the judgment reiterates established legal standards on evidence and procedural fairness in advance ruling proceedings.