JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief :- (i) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the proceedings initiated by way of show cause notice dated 6-10-2017 as the same is issued in contradiction to departmental circular/instruction dated 25-4-2016 and 13-10-2016 by respondent No. 2. (ii) without prejudice to above by an appropriate, writ, order or direction to direct the respondent No. 2 to direct his office, jurisdictional office, respondent No. 3 office to supply resumed unrelied upon documents and RTI Documents and complete records of the case in the interest of justice to the petitioners to submit appropriate defence reply and to request for cross examination of desired persons. (iii) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction to grant reasonable time to submit the defence reply after providing documents under Rule 24A and documents requested in prayer No. 2. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that show cause notice was issued. The petitioner made representation for supply of the documents which sought to be relied by the department but the same was not accepted in spite of decision of this Court in PGO Processors Private Ltd. v. Commissioner, C. Ex. - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 26 (Raj.) and decision of Supreme Court in Kothari Filaments v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) wherein it has been observed as under :- "8. Mr. J.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that before the impugned order was passed by the authorities of the Customs Department, admittedly an enquiry was conducted at various places. However, the documents collected during the said enquiry were not supplied to them although reliance was placed thereupon and, thus, the principles of natural justice have been violated. 15. The statutory authorities under the Act exercise quasi-judicial function. By reason of the impugned order, the properties could be confiscated, redemption fine and personal fine could be imposed and in the event an importer was found guilty of violation of the provisions of the Act. In the event, a finding as regards violation of the provisions of the Act is arrived at, several steps resulting in civil or evil consequences may be taken. The principles of natural justice, therefore, were required to be complied with. 16. In the event, a finding as regards violation of the provisions of the Act is arrived at, several steps resulting in civil or evil consequences may be taken. The principles of natural justice, therefore, were required to be complied with. 16. The Act does not prohibit application of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs either could not have passed the order on the basis of the materials which were known only to them, copies whereof were not supplied or inspection thereto had not been given. He, thus, could not have adverted to the report of the overseas enquiries. A person charged with misdeclaration is entitled to know the ground on the basis whereof he would be penalized. He may have an answer to the charges or may not have. But there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in law he is entitled to a proper hearing which would include supply of the documents. Only on knowing the contents of the documents, he could furnish an effective reply. 18. In view of the aforementioned settled legal principles, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case." 3. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in M/s. Patron Detective and Security Service (D.B. Central/Excise Appeal No. 5/2014) decided on 11-10-2017 [2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 133 (Raj.)] wherein it has been held as under :- "2. This Court while admitting the appeal on 30-3-2015, framed following substantial question of law :- "(1) Whether non-supply of resumed records which are relied upon in SCN and adjudication order constitute violation of principles of natural justice, when not provided in spite of preliminary objections and request letters? (2) Whether onus of proving classification was on the part of appellant when all the resumed and relied upon documents were not supplied to him in spite of repeated requests?" 10. It is well settled principle of law that the person who is to take an action is required to supply basic documents, which sought to be relied upon. The documents though referred in the show cause notice were not given to the assessee by the Tribunal. 12. In that view of the matter, we remit back the matter to the first authority. The documents though referred in the show cause notice were not given to the assessee by the Tribunal. 12. In that view of the matter, we remit back the matter to the first authority. The petitioner will appear before the first authority on 6-11-2017 and authority will settle the matter within a period of four weeks and reply after the documents are supplied to the appellant. Reply will be filed if required within the period of three weeks from receipt of the documents. Therefore, issue No. 1 is answered in favour of assessee." 4. He also relied upon the Circular No. IV/16/312/2006-CZO, dated 20-9-2006 wherein it has been provided as under :- 2. In this connection, your kind attention is invited to Board's Circular No. 42/88-CX.6, dated 24-5-1988 and No. 48/88-CX.6, dated 10-6-1988 as per which the documents/records which are not relied upon in the show cause notice are required to be returned under proper receipt to the persons from whom they were seized. Further, at the time of issue of show cause notice, a clause may be incorporated in the show cause notice stating that unrelied upon documents/records may be collected by the persons within 30 days of receipt of show cause notice. The show cause notice should also include the name and designation of the officer responsible for returning such documents/records. 5. He also relied upon the Circular No. 207/09/2006-CX., dated 8-9-2006 wherein it has been provided as under :- 2. In this regard, your attention is invited to the Board's Circular No. 42/88-CX, dated 24-5-1988 and No. 48/88-CX.6, dated 10-6-1988. As per these circulars, the documents/records which are not relied upon in the show cause notice are required to be returned under proper receipt to the persons from whom they are seized. I wish to reiterate compliance of these instructions. In fact, the show cause notice itself may incorporate a clause that unrelied upon records may be collected by the concerned persons within 30 days of receipt of the show cause notice. The designation and address of the officer responsible for returning the relied upon records should also be mentioned in the show cause notice. 6. He also relied upon the Circular No. 42/88-CX.6, dated 24-5-1988 wherein it has been provided as under :- 2. The designation and address of the officer responsible for returning the relied upon records should also be mentioned in the show cause notice. 6. He also relied upon the Circular No. 42/88-CX.6, dated 24-5-1988 wherein it has been provided as under :- 2. Once the show cause notice is issued to the party the documents/records, which have not been relied upon, may be returned to the party under proper receipt. 3. The above measures would help substantially reduce the time taken by parties for inspection of documents. 7. He submitted that in the eventuatlity the order is passed, the appellate authority will not entertain the appeal without depositing the amount. Prima facie, the issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court and it was binding upon the officer to follow the said decision, otherwise any damage to the petitioner will be recovered from erring officer for not following the judgments which are binding and it will be open for the Court to pass an appropriate order for recovery of the amount from the officer. 8. We deprecate the practice of the officer in increasing litigation in the High Court on arbitrary plea. We observe that this ex parte order is passed in view of the fact that in spite of representation made for supplying documents, the same has not been supplied. The officer will now act in accordance with law and will not proceed arbitrarily, without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner. 9. The petition stands disposed of.