TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see and to such an extent as would give an opportunity to the assessee to complain that the SCN having been issued decades back, it cannot be adjudicated. The petitioners should not be denied the relief - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 12780 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-2-2017 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Prasad Paranjpe Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/by M/s. PDS Legal for the Petitioners Mr. Swapnil Bangur with Mr. Sham V. Walve for the Respondents JUDGMENT ( Per Shri S. C. Dharmadhikari, J. ) 1. In this writ petition, the only relief that the petitioners seek is of a declaration that the proceedings pursuant to a Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1997. Assessee filed written submission along with power of Attorney in favour of Matubai Jaitram on 01.12.1997 and also made further submissions on 08.12.1997. Meanwhile the SCN was transferred to Call Book being CERA objection was contested. During the review of call book cases it was observed that the objection of CERA was settled in the year 2008. However, a point was raised as to CERA has closed the Para or Ministry has admitted the objection and later on the Para was closed. This issue is still to be settled and therefore, the matter was continued to be kept in call book. 5. We have carefully perused this paragraph and the explanation that is provided subsequently. Concededly, the Show Cause Notice is dated 22-7-1991. Even if w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Show Cause Notice because in their record nothing was available. They state that they cannot now attend the hearing in such a Show Cause Notice after 25 years. Nothing would be available including the records. The Superintendent proceeded to inform them that the Show Cause Notice would now be adjudicated. They would revive the same and adjudicate it. Such notice being issued in the month of September and October, 2016 that the petitioners rushed to this Court. 6. The Division Benches of this Court have been consistently, in some matters or the other of this type, called upon to rule on this approach of the Revenue. The earliest decision that we have been shown is of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued and duly served, reasonable opportunity has to be afforded to the assessee to reply to the same and/or to submit his/her explanation on merits. If such an opportunity is availed of by the assessee and he/she duly inspects the record, then, the Revenue cannot be said to be acting unreasonably if it directs the assessee to get ready and argue the case. The Revenue would be justified in granting reasonable accommodation, but liberal adjournments do not serve any purpose but would rather defeat the public interest. The Revenue must understand that just as it is anxious to recover public money, the assessee is equally keen to face the consequences of legal proceedings. They do not wish to keep the proceedings lingering for they would want to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then passed on merits and none can complain that he was not aware of or was denied the opportunity to defend himself. The principles of natural justice are not codified. They only contemplate that opportunity to defend has to be granted in the event an adverse order having civil consequences has to be passed. Therefore, the quasijudicial authorities should realise that they need not be friendly or liberal with the assessee and to such an extent as would give an opportunity to the assessee to complain that the Show Cause Notice having been issued decades back, it cannot be adjudicated. 12. In the present case, we find that the petitioners' argument is that it is impossible for them to remember what was the issue and some decades back, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
