Point of Law: Breach of principles of natural justice and defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure falls within exceptions noticed by Supreme Court in the above decision, wherein availability of an alternative remedy will not act as a bar in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. The petitioner herein is challenging the order dated 28.08.2019 issued by the Commissioner of Central GST and Service Tax Act, Vadodara-II whereby the request for cross examination of the witnesses whose statements have been recorded but not relied upon is questioned. It is on the ground that it is not tenable, no genuine reason for asking for cross examination that this denial had come. The petitioner’s grievance is that there is no finding given by the respondent no. 2 as to why he has not found such a request sustainable. This being a non-speaking order, it is in clear violation of the principle of natural justice.

2. The prayers sought for in the present proceedings are as follows: -

“(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to call for records and proceedings before respondent no.2, the Commissioner of CGST and Service Tax, Vadodara-II Commissioner ate at Vadodara to verify the noting of directions on the file;

(AA) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the Order in Original No. VADEXCUS- 002-COM-015-20-21 dated 29.10.2020 passed by respondent no.2;

(B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondent no.2 conveyed vide Letter 28.08.2019 issued in F.No. order/letter dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure-A), and be further pleased to direct respondent no.2, to allow the petitioners to cross examine the persons whose statements are taken but not relied upon in the Show Cause Notice;

(C) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the 2nd respondent herein from conducting and concluding adjudication proceedings of Show Cause Notice No. V. CH.72(04)/RSL/PREV/ADJ/COMMR/03/2017-18 dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure-B) without allowing cross examination of defence witnesses requested for by the petitioners vide letter dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure-C collectively);

(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, the 2nd respondent herein, from proceeding ahead with the adjudication of Show Cause Notice V. Ch. 72(04)/RSL/PREV/ADJ/COMMR/03/2017-18 dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure-B);

(DA) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain Respondents, its agents, servants not to take any coercive actions pursuant to the Order In Original No. VAD-EXCUS-002-COM-015-20-21 dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure-H) and stayed the implementation and the operation of the order dated 29.10.2020;

(E) An ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para 10(D) above may kindly be granted;

(F) Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted.”

3. The facts leading to the present petition, in brief, are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing of Stainless Steel Billetrs, Bright Bars, Rounds, Flats etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

3.2. A show cause notice has been issued by the respondent no. 2 dated 08.05.2017 alleging clandestine manufacture and clearance of finished goods during the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16 based on the various statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It included the statements of buyers and some of those buyers denied of having received any goods without invoices which according to the petitioner since favoured the petitioner, the statements have not been relied upon.

3.3. The petitioner sought the inspection of the relied upon documents and the statements as well as those statements w