• Advertise
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
  • Law Firms
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

  • Debashree-Dutta
    Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised
  • Trilegal
    Trilegal advised Muthoot Finance
  • SAM
    Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas advised
  • Sippy
    Delhi High Court rules on Trademark Law
  • Stovekraft
    Arya Mathew joins Stovekraft as a
  • Punjab-and-Haryana-High-Court
    Punjab and Haryana High Court repeals
  • Sahara
    Supreme Court sets aside Delhi High
  • NCLAT
    NCLAT urges IBBI to consider modifying
  • Insurance
    Supreme Court directs insurance
  • Supreme Court terms copyright infringement a non-bailable offence
    Supreme Court terms copyright
HomeNewsFrom the Courts
6 Dec 2021 6:00 AM GMT

Bombay High Court rules in support of the petitioner

By Legal Era
Bombay High Court rules in support of the petitioner

Bombay High Court rules in support of the petitioner No right to cross-examine witnesses before a response to the show cause notice The Bombay High Court has granted a petitioner to file a final reply to the show-cause notice-cum-demand notice within a fortnight. It felt that no one had the right to cross-examine the witness before the response to the show-cause notice was filed and...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans

Bombay High Court rules in support of the petitioner

No right to cross-examine witnesses before a response to the show cause notice

The Bombay High Court has granted a petitioner to file a final reply to the show-cause notice-cum-demand notice within a fortnight. It felt that no one had the right to cross-examine the witness before the response to the show-cause notice was filed and before the adjudication commenced.

The division bench of Chief Justice Deepankar Dutta and Justice M S Karnik held that only after the statements of the witnesses were recorded by the relevant authority in course of adjudication of proceedings that the evidence would be regarded as relevant. A fair, reasonable and adequate opportunity has to be provided to the defence, it said.

The petitioner had denied every allegation made in the show-cause notice. He made a categorical statement that the 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 was issued, the petitioner called upon the Commissioner to produce witnesses for being cross-examined by him.

The action, according to the petitioner, flowed from the statutory mandate. While asking the Commissioner, the petitioner had referred to another show-cause notice of last year. This was addressed to the deputy commissioner of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Division IV, Kolhapur Commissionerate. The petitioner requested that both notices be adjudicated together.

However, the commissioner responded by stating that the petitioner had not replied to the show-cause notice, therefore, his request for cross-examination of the witnesses, was premature. It was also stated that as and when the petitioner filed his reply, his request for cross-examination of the witnesses would be examined.

Aggrieved by the denial of the opportunity, the petition was filed.

TAGS:
  • Bombay High Court 
  • Chief Justice Deepankar Dutta 
  • Justice MS Karnik 
  • Central Goods and Services Tax 
Next Story
Similar Posts
See More
Trending Now
Tax on Alimony

Tax on Alimony

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX

Insolvency Procedure For MSMEs?

Insolvency Procedure For MSMEs?

Power of Magistrate to direct FIR registration & proper investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC

Power of Magistrate to direct FIR registration & proper

Recommended Articles
Arbitration and Commercial Courts: A Jurisdictional Conflict

Arbitration and Commercial Courts: A Jurisdictional Conflict

Multiplicity of Arbitral Proceedings in India

Multiplicity of Arbitral Proceedings in India

Copyright and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

Copyright and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

Renewed Interest in Quincecare Duty of Care in Claims Against Banks

Renewed Interest in Quincecare Duty of Care in Claims

  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2022© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X