TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 31-8-2017 - Debangsu Basak, J. Mr. R.K. Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. P. Chatterjee, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Adv. For the respondents ORDER The Court :- A show cause-cum-demand notice dated August 8, 2016 is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, although the petitioner has replied to the show cause notice, the same has not been disposed of till date. He submits that, the authorities have invoked the extended period of limitation as would appear from the impugned show cause-cum-demand notice. He submits that, if a claim made by the Department in the show cause notice is barred by limitation, then such show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent; or d) suppression of facts; or e) contravention of any of the provisions of the Act of 1944 or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the authorities shall within five years from the relevant date, to serve notice on such person requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice along with interest payable thereon under Section 11AA and a penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the notice. Under Section 11A(4) the Central Excise Officer has a period of five years from the relevant date for the issuance of show cause notice if the events tabulated in such sub-section and upon the clauses thereunder being fulfilled. In the present case, the impugned show cause-cum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticle 226 for obtaining relief is not inappropriate. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said, by reading the impugned notice that, on the date of the issuance, the period specified therein is barred by the limitation prescribed. Tinplate Company of India Limited (supra) is rendered in context of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the facts of that case, it was found that, the assessee was not guilty of suppression of any material fact before the authorities. In the present case, the allegation is that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material fact. This allegation is an issue of fact. It is required to be considered by the adjudicating authority. On the basis of the materials placed before the Writ Court, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the writ petitioner on terms. The writ petitioner will pay costs assessed at ₹ 2,00,000/- (two lakhs) to the West Bengal State Legal Aid Services, Kolkata within a week from date. The writ petitioner is directed to produce documentary evidence of payment of such costs before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority will commence the adjudicating process on and from September 11, 2017 on a day to day basis and will conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The adjudicating authority will not grant any adjournment to any of the parties on any pretext whatsoever including the absence of the learned Advocate representing the parties. In the event of default of payment of the costs as directed herein, the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
