Page 86 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

332 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
3. It is the allegation of the petitioners that, petitioner No. 2 was called
by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to his office by threatening of dire
consequences, forced him to sign his statement admitting evasion of tax as dic-
tated by him to subordinate officer. As petitioner No. 2 refused to do so, he was
made to stay late in the night beyond office hours. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2
was arrested by respondent No. 5 and was produced before the jurisdictional
Court. He was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, released on bail. The
petitioners were issued with the show cause notice dated 19-4-2017 asking them
to show cause as to why the services rendered by the petitioner No. 1 should not
be considered as part of services and consequently why the amounts mentioned
therein should not be demanded and recovered from the first petitioner along
with applicable interest and penalties. A reply was filed to the said notice specifi-
cally seeking for permission to cross-examine respondent No. 4 (in Writ Petition
Nos. 40985 and 42534 of 2017) as well as petitioner No. 2 (in Writ Petition Nos.
34990-34991 of 2016). The request for cross-examination was denied. Hence, writ
petition Nos. 40985 and 42534 of 2017 were filed. The grievance of the petitioners
was that there was a denial of permission to cross-examine respondent No. 4 and
petitioner No. 2.
4. The Learned Single Judge having considered the plea of the parties
was of the view that no cross-examination of any witnesses whose statements are
recorded by the adjudicating authority is sought in the present proceedings. Peti-
tioner No. 2 has requested to cross-examine himself and the adjudicating author-
ity, which is inappropriate. However, while considering the totality of the cir-
cumstances of the case, the Court felt that an opportunity has to be provided to
the petitioners to adduce any evidence to substantiate their case. All the rights
and contentions of the parties were kept open. The proceedings were restored to
the file of the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax to provide an op-
portunity to file the reply and objections as well as to adduce any evidence by the
petitioners. The Commissioner was accordingly directed to consider the same
and pass appropriate orders thereon, after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the parties.
5. The Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the right to
cross-examination has not been granted.
6. However, the same is disputed to by the respondents’ Counsel.
7. On hearing Learned Counsels, we do not find any merit in this ap-
peal. The question of cross-examination of petitioner No. 2 by himself and the
adjudicating authority does not arise. Even otherwise, the rights of the petition-
ers are protected. The liberty is granted to the petitioners to adduce any evidence
to substantiate their stand and the respondents-authority was also directed to
consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, there is no denial of
the rights of the petitioners.
8. We find that the order of the Learned Single Judge is sufficient and
well reasoned to protect the legal rights of the petitioners. They are entitled to
make a statement or otherwise as held by the Learned Single Judge. Hence, we
find no good ground to consider the case of the petitioners. Hence, the appeal is
dismissed.

_______

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  86