Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 1701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eipt of the said notice cannot be said to be established by the noticee and based thereupon, recording findings that concerned authorized person of the petitioner Company, who also is the signatory to this petition, did receive the notice and therefore, it cannot be in any manner correct on the part of the petitioners to say that there was no knowledge of existence of show cause notice dated 22-8-2002. This contention needs to be examined in light of the principles underlying the law, which is by now settled that inordinate delay in adjudication results into denial of principles of natural justice and that proposition cannot be said to be non est in the present proceedings. Alternative remedy - Held that:- The ground of alternative .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s well as shareholder of the Petitioner No. 1 Company. The petitioner Company obtained advance DTA sales permission dated 27-6-2001 and served a copy of the same on the jurisdiction Range Superintendent vide letter dated 28-6-2001. Suddenly in October, 2016, Petitioner No. 1 company received a personal hearing notice dated 5-10-2016 fixing personal hearing on 18-10-2016 for a show cause notice dated 22-8-2002. The petitioner vide letter dated 14-10-2016 informed the Respondent No. 2 that it has no copy of the show cause notice dated 22-8-2002 and sought a copy of the same along with request for adjournment of the personal hearing fixed on 18-10-2016. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner (Adjudication) Surat-I, Commissionerate furnished c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ive and resurrect the matter on the original show cause notice and indicated that the said attempt on the part of authority would not be in consonance with provisions of law and the decision then prevailing on the situation in case of Lanvin Synthetics Private Limited v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 429 (Bom.) was relied upon. This aspect has unfortunately not been adverted to the authority while rendering Order-in-Original, which is impugned in this petition and therefore, it can well be said that the order suffers from basic infirmity, which would go the root of the matter, therefore, order impugned is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have relied on following authorities : .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d same similar issues are pending adjudication before the High Court and Supreme Court. The said circulars have been pressed into service to indicate that there was sufficient justification on the part of authority in conducting the matter pursuant to show cause notice of the year 2002. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent further submitted that petitioners have unfortunately not indicated in any manner as to whether they were really prejudiced on account of lost of evidence as it was a case in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where the Court did record that evidences are also not available. In the instant case, unfortunately there is no clear averments to that effect. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the respon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erefore, it cannot be in any manner correct on the part of the petitioners to say that there was no knowledge of existence of show cause notice dated 22-8-2002. We are of the view that this contention needs to be examined in light of the principles underlying the law, which is by now settled that inordinate delay in adjudication results into denial of principles of natural justice and that proposition cannot be said to be non est in the present proceedings. The receipt of notice dated 22-8-2002 and findings recorded thereon would pale into insignificance, if the same is to be viewed in light of observations of the Court in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. (supra) and other decisions cited as b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates