Officers who issued summons or arrest memos are not required to be cross-examined by the assessee, as they acted in an official capacity.
The Gujarat High Court has upheld the Department’s decision to deny cross-examination of departmental officers who issued Summons/Arrest Memos in a Rs. 14.52 crore GST evasion case.
The bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice Pranav Trivedi has observed that such denial does not violate principles of natural justice, particularly where the adjudication is primarily based on documentary evidence and no material prejudice is demonstrated by the assessee.
The petitioner, proprietor of M/s KSEG India International, was accused by the Central GST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Vadodara-I, of fraudulently availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) from 24 suppliers between July 2017 and March 2022 without actual movement of goods. Based on investigations and searches at the petitioner’s premises, authorities alleged that the firm received invoices from fictitious or non-existent suppliers and passed on ineligible ITC.
The Order confirmed a total demand of Rs. 14.52 crore, along with interest and penalty.
The petitioner sought to quash the Order on the ground that he was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. His request to cross-examine five individuals, including four departmental officers and a commission agent, was ignored. His advocate was indisposed on key hearing dates, resulting in the inability to appear or file final written submissions.
With regard to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding denial of cross-examination of individuals named in the application dated October 4, 2024, the High Court observed, “Out of the five persons, four belong to the Department who have either issued the summons or arrest memo and therefore, such persons are not required to be cross-examined by the petitioner. The respondent authority has rightly not granted the cross-examination of such departmental officers.”
The Court noted that adequate opportunities were given, including issuance of multiple summons and personal hearing letters. However, neither Mr. Jani nor the petitioner appeared for cross-examination, rendering the request baseless.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Commercial Steel Ltd., the bench ruled that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy—specifically, an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act—barred the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Case Details
Case Title: Sazid Ali Khan Versus Office Of Principal Commissioner, Central Gst And Central Excise Commissionerate, Vadodara-I & Ors
Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 6437 Of 2025
Date: 20/06/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Pavan S Godiawala
Counsel For Respondent: Abhishek D. Jain
Read More: FinMin Issues Warning Against Fake GST Violation Notices
