GST | Refusal Of Cross-Examination For A Wrong Reason Does Not Mean It Had To Be Granted: Allahabad High Court

The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held

“While we accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the reasoning offered by the adjudicating authority to decline opportunity of cross-examination of respondent Nos.3 and 4 is unsustainable, at the same time, it cannot be said by way of a corollary-therefore, that opportunity must necessarily have been granted by the adjudicating authority. Which witness is to be cross-examined, is an issue to be dealt with by the adjudicating authority on its own facts in each case.”

Petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 30.06.2026 under Section 74 of the SGST Act, 2017 read with Section 8 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 for F.Y. 2021-22. In the first round of litigation, the Court had set aside the earlier orders for violation of Section 75(7) of the Act and directed that any application for cross-examination be decided before the hearing was fixed.

On the fresh notice that followed, the two panch witnesses were cross-examined. The petitioner then applied to cross-examine respondents no.3 and 4, the officers concerned with the search. The adjudication order came without any order on that application, recording that the two officers enjoyed immunity under Section 157 of the UPGST Act, 2017.

Petitioner pleaded that the panch witnesses had denied that the panchnama was filled up in their presence and had indicated that they signed blank papers, leaving its contents unproven.

The revenue submitted that cross-examination had been allowed so far as it was needed, and that officers discharging official duties need not invariably be cross-examined to prove the contents of a document.

The Court observed that counsel for the petitioner might be right that mere production of a document does not prove it, but that this did not answer whether the writ remedy was the most appropriate one.

It observed that documents had been furnished and the panch witnesses cross-examined; what those statements established was a matter of merits, which it left open to be examined in appeal. The petitioner was not remediless, it noted, as the appellate authority could itself permit cross-examination or call for a report from the adjudicating authority.

On the plea that cross-examination once granted could not later be withdrawn, the Court held

“Further submission that the prayer for cross-examination had been earlier granted by respondent No.4 but later that has been denied, may also not be seen as right that had already vested in the petitioner, inasmuch as that would remain an interlocutory order, that may have been subject to further proceedings.”

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that an appeal filed within four weeks would be entertained and decided on its own merits without any objection as to limitation.