The court affirmed the petitioner's right to receive non-relied documents and to cross-examine witnesses, emphasizing the duty of the respondents to comply with statutory timelines for document release.

ORDER :

With Consent of the parties, heard finally at motion stage.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-

"(i) Allow the present Writ Petition;

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ/orders/directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to release/provide the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted and not relied upon in the show cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022, to the Petitioner in a time-bound manner.

(iii) Issue an appropriate writ/orders/directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to submit detailed reply within a period of 30 (Thirty) days from the release/provision of the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted and not relied upon in the show cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022 to the Petitioner.

(iv) Issue an appropriate writ/orders/directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses whose evidence has been relied upon in the show cause notices upon release/ provision of the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted and not relied upon in the show cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022 to the Petitioner;

(v) Issue an appropriate writ/orders/directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to provide personal hearing to the Petitioner upon release/ provision of the original copy of documents seized by the Respondent from the premises of the Petitioner during various searches conducted and not relied upon in the show cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022 to the Petitioner;

(vi) Pass any such orders which this court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the matter."

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Respondent No. 2 issued show cause notices bearing No. 25/DGGI/ RUI/ADD/GST/2022-2023 dated 08.06.2022 and 50/DGGI/ RUI/ADG/C.Ex./2022-2023 dated 03.08.2022 to petitioner respectively whereby a total demand of GST and Cess Rs. 19,462,273,010/- (Rupees Nineteen Hundred Forty-Six Crores Twenty-Two Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand and Ten Only) comprising of CGST of Rs. 75,82,19,416/-, SGST of Rs. 75,82,19,416/- and Cess of Rs. 1794,58,34,178/-has been issued against the Petitioner Company and other persons under the false pretext of clandestine supply of filter cigarettes by the Petitioner Company without cover of invoices and tax payments for the period from 01.07.2017 to 10.06.2020. In order to enable the petitioner to file reply and contest the said show cause notices dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022 in adjudication proceedings, the petitioner needs certified copies of relied documents in the said show cause notices and original copy of non-relied documents and hence, the petitioner wrote letters dated 20.07.2022, 08.08.2022, 20.11.2023, 18.03.2024 and 03.04.2024 seeking original copy of non-relied documents from the petitioner but the same have not been provided to the petitioner till date whereas next date of personal hearing has been fixed on 29.05.2024 for filing reply but petitioner has been disabled in filing the reply in absence of certified copy of relied documents and original copy of non-relied documents. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty of the Respondents to release the non-relied upon documents within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the issuance of the show cause notice in light Section 67 (3) of the CGST Act and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules 2017 but the Respondent have failed to provide the original copy of the non-relied documents till date. In support of the said submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of this court in Methodex Systems Ltd. Vs Uni