TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS. [ 2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT ] - the apex court has held that there are certain exceptions in the rule of alternate remedy including where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of law or acted in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure or violation of principles of natural justice. The only ground on which the petitioner has filed this writ petition is that despite repeated demands the data collected from the laptop of Manish Verma were provided to him. However, it is not in dispute that the data and documents relied on in the show cause notice were provided to the petitioner. When any the noticee prays for fair trial then there should be effective participation in the entire trial by him also. The petitioner instead of appearing through a legal representative before the adjudicating authority was kept on corresponding for supply for entire data collected by the respondents during the search. No such demand was made by the person from whose possession the data was seized - Even otherwise appellate authority is competent to examine the effect non-supply of non relied upon documents/ data whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... others were served with a show-cause notice no.53-68/RUI/ADG/ST/2019 dated 12.11.2019 by the GST and Central Excise Indore calling upon them to appear on 25.03.2020 before the competent authority/ Adjudicating Authority either directly or through an authorized representative. Copy of the show cause notice dated 12.11.2019 is filed as Annexure-P/2 in the writ petition. The petitioner is referred to as noticee no.4 in the said notice. 2/ As per the contents of the show-cause notice the investigation carried out by the GST has revealed that Rohit Sethi was the key person and the sole beneficiary of the business of the petitioner company, that has been found involved in the evasion of service tax. The officer of Director General of GST conducted the search in the premises on 04.01.2018 and 25.01.2018 and recovered and seized incriminating materials document and computer data. The residential premises of Rohit Sethi was also searched. The search operation led to the recovery of a large amount of data in the digital form which they seized by way of panchanamas. Forensic images of the seized storage device were created. Along with the show cause notice document relied upon as mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate in this behalf. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy by way of appeal after the decision taken by the adjudicating authorities. Hence this petition is liable to be dismissed. 5/ During the pendency of this petition, the adjudicating authority has passed a final order on 19.02.2021 confirming the demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 15,01,98,745/- along with the penalty of the same amount against Rohit Sethi and others including the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an application for amendment challenging the aforesaid order in this petition. 6/ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole issue involves in this petition is whether the petitioner has been given an effective opportunity of hearing by non supplying the documents, data, demanded by the petitioner during the hearing before the adjudicating authority. The petitioner is having the fundamental right of having the effective opportunity of hearing before imposing tax liability with interest and penalty. Although the relied documents were supplied with the show cause notice but the documents on which the petitioner wanted to rely in order to submit an ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supplied to the petitioner and for other documents, the petitioner did not give a detail otherwise that would have been provided or permitted to inspect the same. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry before the adjudicating authority. He has only sent letters to the office of Dy. Director for providing RUD i.e. complete data in soft form recovered from the laptop of Manish Sharma. The petitioner has been given various opportunities to appear before the authority but he has failed to appear hence the adjudicating authority has passed a final order, against which the petitioner is having alternative remedy. Except for the petitioner all other noticee did appear, they recorded their statement and produced the necessary documents, therefore, only for the petitioner out of 15 noticees. The final order passed by the adjudicating authority cannot be quashed. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. Shri Prasad has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the apex court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beveraged Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others (2014) 15 SCC 44, Hameed Kanju Vs. Najim (2017) 8 SCC 611, Ansal Housing and Const. Ltd. Vs. State of UP (2016) 13 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
