Review Petition Dismissed: Original Non-RUDs Must Be Supplied for Fair Adjudication

Case Reference

• Case Title: Union of India vs M/s Elora Tobacco Company Ltd.

• Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench

• Petition Number: Review Petition No. 685 of 2024

• Relevant Sections: Section 67(3), Section 145 of CGST Act; Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2017

• Category of Dispute: Refund – Seizure of Non-Relied Upon Documents (N-RUD)

• Date of Judgment: 30.08.2024

• Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Gajendra Singh

Facts of the Case [Paras 1–5]

1. The Union of India filed a review petition challenging the order dated 20.05.2024 in WP No. 12326/2024, wherein the Court directed the department to return original non-relied upon documents (N-RUDs) to M/s Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd. to enable the latter to respond to SCNs dated 08.06.2022 and 03.08.2022.

2. The department admitted loss of original documents (Files 11, 12, and 13) and supplied scanned copies certified under Section 145 of the CGST Act.

3. The assessee refused to submit replies without originals, arguing the scanned versions were unauthenticated and violated procedural fairness under Section 67(3).

4. The assessee also challenged the legality of the Panchnama and Search Report for non-compliance with CBIC Circular No. 128/47/2019-GST and absence of Document Identification Numbers (DIN).

5. The adjudicating authority claimed urgency due to the nearing expiry of limitation period under Section 74 of the CGST Act.

Question(s) in Consideration [Paras 6–8]

• Whether scanned copies of non-relied upon documents (N-RUDs) can substitute for originals in view of Section 67(3) of the CGST Act?

• Whether the review petition establishes an “error apparent on the face of record” warranting a reversal of the earlier final judgment dated 20.05.2024?

Observations of the Court [Paras 7–14]

1. A review is permissible only if there is discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of record (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC).

2. No such ground was demonstrated by the petitioners. The loss of files and subsequent FIR were already discussed during the writ proceedings.

3. The Court reiterated that supplying originals is mandatory under Section 67(3) and that scanned documents cannot replace them.

4. Reliance was placed on Methodex Systems Ltd. vs Union of India (2000 01 MP CK 0061) and other precedents including Sow Chandra Kante, Kamlesh Verma and Avtar Singh Sekhon, which emphasize the strict limitation of review jurisdiction.

5. The order under review merely directed compliance with statutory and procedural safeguards to uphold fair adjudication.

Judgment of the Court [Para 15]

• The Review Petition was dismissed.

• The original order dated 20.05.2024 stands affirmed.

• Petitioners (Department) are bound to supply the original non-relied upon documents to enable the assessee’s defense.

• There is no error apparent on the face of the record to justify review.

Between Fine Lines

• Courts will not entertain review petitions unless there is a clear legal or factual error.

• Departments must adhere to statutory requirements like returning original non-relied documents.

• Procedural fairness under GST is paramount, especially during adjudication.

• Scanned copies cannot substitute original documents if originals are mandated.

• Delays or manipulations in preserving seized records can affect departmental adjudication.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”