PRAKASH RAGHUNATH AUTADE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Pune Zonal Unit, Pune issued a show-cause-cum-demand notice dated 24th September, 2020 calling upon the petitioner to explain why action, as proposed in paragraph 17 thereof, should not be taken against him for alleged violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter "the Act", for short) as well as other statutory provisions.

(2.) On receipt of such notice, the petitioner replied by a letter dated 23rd October, 2020 addressed to the Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur. At the out-set, he denied each and every allegation made in the show-cause notice. He, however, made a categorical statement that the said letter ought not to be treated as his reply to the show-cause notice. Referring to the statements of witnesses (recorded prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice) based whereon the show-cause notice came to be issued, the petitioner called upon the Commissioner to produce such witnesses for being cross-examined by him. This course of action, according to the petitioner, flowed from the statutory mandate contained in section 9D of the Act. While so asking the Commissioner, the petitioner referred to another show-cause notice dated 25th September, 2020 which was answerable to the Deputy Commissioner of CGST, Division IV, Kolhapur Commissionerate and requested that both notices be adjudicated together.

(3.) The Commissioner, by a letter dated 13th July, 2021, responded by stating that the petitioner not having replied to the show-cause notice, his request for cross-examination of the witnesses, at that stage, was premature. It was also stated that as and when the petitioner files his reply, his request for crossexamination of the witnesses would be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.