Allowed¶11

Devkinandan J Gupta Metals LLP v. Union of India

Bombay HC14 Jul 2025WP/1394/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Devkinandan J. Gupta Metals LLP v. Union of India; Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No. 1394 of 2025; Order-In-Appeal; Commissioner (Appeals); Order-In-Original; refund claim; additional evidence before appellate authority; Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan; Sunshine Traders; cancellation of registration; fresh show cause notice; natural justice; remand; Rule made absolute; M.S. Sonak; Jitendra Jain.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute: impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 set aside and matter remanded to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal afresh, permitting the Petitioner to produce and rely upon this Court's judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 and the Respondents to rely upon the fresh show cause notice proceedings and the cancellation order dated 18 March 2024; no order for costs. ¶11

Devkinandan J Gupta Metals LLP vs Union of India — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Authority could shut out the Petitioner's production of, and reliance upon, this Court's judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 in Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan v. Union of India & ors. on the ground that its production amounted to additional evidence. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

Production of a judgment of this Court, which may have some relevance to the Petitioner's case, could not have been shut out by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same amounts to additional evidence or that the procedure for adducing additional evidence was not substantially followed; the Petitioner should have been allowed to produce the judgment, leaving the Appellate Authority free to take any appropriate view upon consideration.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority, with liberty to the Petitioner to produce and rely upon this Court's judgment and order dated 11 September 2023, and with liberty to the Respondents to rely upon the proceedings in the fresh show cause notice issued to Mr. Pradhan and the cancellation order dated 18 March 2024.

¶8

Key takeaways

On remand, the Appellate Authority must allow the Petitioner to produce and rely upon this Court's judgment and order dated 11 September 2023, allow the Respondents to rely upon the fresh show cause notice proceedings and the cancellation of registration order dated 18 March 2024, and dispose of the appeal afresh considering this material together with all other contentions of the Petitioner and defenses urged by the Respondents.ratio¶9
All contentions of all parties on the merits are explicitly left open.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Refund appeal — Appellate Authority (Commissioner, Appeals) rejected the Petitioner's appeal against the Order-In-Original dated 28 April 2023, refusing to permit production of the Bombay High Court's judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 in Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan v. Union of India & ors. (registration cancellation of M/s. Sunshine Traders restored on natural justice grounds) on the plea that it amounted to 'additional evidence'. Held: production of a judgment of this Court having some relevance to the petitioner's case cannot be shut out as additional evidence; the petitioner should have been allowed to produce it, with the Appellate Authority free to take any appropriate view on consideration. Since, after the said judgment, a fresh show cause notice was issued to Mr. Pradhan culminating in a fresh cancellation of registration order dated 18 March 2024, the Respondents must equally be allowed to rely on those subsequent proceedings. Impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 set aside; matter remanded to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal afresh on the whole material; all contentions on the merits left open; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2025.07.16 14:34:19 +0530

¶2

(903) WP-1394.25.DOCX

¶3

lgc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1394 OF 2025

¶6

Devkinandan J. Gupta Metals LLP : Petitioner Versus Union of India and ors. : Respondents.

¶7

Ms Aarti Sathe a/w Ms Aasavari Kadam for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Maya Majumdar a/w Ms Niyati Mankad (Through V.C.) and Ms. Priyanka Singh for the Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 15 JULY 2025

¶10

ORAL ORDER:- (M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The challenge in this Petition is to the Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the Petitioner’s Appeal against the Order-In-Original

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

(903) WP-1394.25.DOCX

¶16

dated 28 April 2023 by which the Petitioner had sought a refund.

¶17

The Petitioner had relied upon the judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 made by this Court in the case of Nirakar Ramchandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India & ors.¹ by which the cancellation of registration of M/s. Sunshine Traders, a proprietary concern of Mr. Nirakar Pradhan, was restored, primarily on the grounds of failure of natural justice. This was not permitted by the Appellate Authority, reasoning that the production of this judgment and order would amount to the production of additional evidence.

¶18

In our opinion, production of the judgment of this Court, which may have some relevance to the Petitioner’s case, could not have been shut out on the ground that the same amounts to additional evidence and that the procedure for adducing additional evidence was not substantially followed. The Petitioner should have been allowed to produce this judgment, and upon consideration of the same, it was always open to the Appellate Authority to take any appropriate view in the matter. But shutting out the production of this judgment and order was not appropriate.

¶19

Ms. Majumdar, the learned counsel for the Respondents, however, submitted that after this Court’s judgement and order dated 11 September 2023, a fresh show cause notice was issued to Mr. Pradhan and upon adjudication of this show

¶20

1 Writ Petition No.2534 of 2023

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

(903) WP-1394.25.DOCX

¶23

cause notice, once again, an order for cancellation of registration was made on 18 March 2024. She submitted that if the Petitioner’s case was based on this Court’s judgment and order dated 11 September 2023, then even the order of cancellation of registration dated 18 March 2024 could be relevant and required to be considered.

¶24

We agree with Ms. Majumdar. Even the proceedings after this Court’s order dated September 11, 2023, must be allowed to be produced. The Appellate Authority must consider all these materials and then dispose of the appeal afresh.

¶25

However, we think that the impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 must be set aside with liberty to the Petitioner to produce and rely upon this Court’s judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 and the Respondents must equally be allowed to rely upon the proceedings in the fresh show cause notice issued to Mr. Pradhan and the cancellation order dated 18 March 2024. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 29 May 2024 and remand the matter to the Appellate Authority.

¶26

The Appellate Authority on remand must allow the Petitioner to produce and rely upon this Court’s judgment and order dated 11 September 2023 and allow the Respondents to rely upon the proceedings in the fresh show cause notice issued to Mr. Pradhan and the order for cancellation of registration dated 18 March 2024. The Appeal must be

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

(903) WP-1394.25.DOCX

¶29

disposed of by considering this material and all other contentions raised by the Petitioner and the defenses urged on behalf of the Respondents.

¶30