TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities did not adjudicate the show- cause notice. The record clearly indicates that the authorities kept the show- cause notice in call book for more than 13 years and without informing the petitioner and as averred by the petitioner, which is not controverted by the respondent authorities and on the contrary on inquiry made by the petitioner, the petitioner was informed that the impugned show- cause notice has been recalled from the call book and was kept again for its adjudication which is against the principles of natural justice and beyond reasonable period. The impugned notice dated 19.03.2004 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20186 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - MR. R.M. CHHAYA AND MR. VIRESHKUMAR B. MAYANI JJ. Appearance: Mr. Dhaval Shah (2354) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 Mr. Ankit Shah (6371) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 Rule Served (64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA) 1.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 2018(8) GSTL 361 (SCA/8940/2017, 8967 8971/2017) 19 22 5 Special Civil Applications No. 18235 of 2017 Shivkrupa Processors Private Limited Vs. UOI 23 29 3. In view thereof, the learned counsel urges the Court that the proceedings deserves to be stayed. We note for the proceedings, the Court issued rule on 5.12.2017 which was made returnable on 09.12.2017. Till date, no reply appears to be filed controverting the averments and relief in the matter. In that view of the matter, when the judgment cited at par on the civil aspect holding that the belated adjudication in itself to sufficient to cause prejudice the proceedings as prayed for deserves to be stayed by way of interim relief. 4. Hence, Rule returnable on 14th June, 2018. In the meantime, till the final disposal of the appeal, the proceedings pursuant to show cause notice dated 29.03.2004, shall remain stayed. 2.Heard Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr Ankit S. Shah, learned Central Government counsel for the respondent authorities. 3. The following fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice for a period of more than 13 years and the said show- cause notice is pending for its adjudication till date. The respondent no.2 verbally informed the authorised person of the petitioner that the show- cause notice is recalled from call book and the adjudication shall be taken over in the month of October 2017. It is thus the case of the petitioner that the adjudication after 13 years of issuance of impugned show- cause notice in respect of goods cleared more than 17 years back is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and is ex facie without authority of law and contrary to the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court and hence, the said show- cause notice is challenged by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the show- cause notice impugned in this petition is dated 19.03.2004 and thereafter no adjudication proceedings were conducted or concluded by the respondent no.2 authority within reasonable period and after a long delay of more than 13 years, the case was taken up for its adjudication by respondent no.2. 5. Relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said that the show- cause notice and its hearing is in any way going to affect or prejudice the petitioner Company. Mr. Shah contended that by the show-cause notice, the petitioner was asked way back in the year 2004 to show cause on various aspects touching the very benefits of the policy derived by the petitioner and contended that the respondent authorities are within their right and jurisdiction to reopen the show- cause notice and in facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that there is any delay on the part of the respondent authority and Mr. Shah contended that the petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed. 7. No other or further submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. 8.Having heard the learned advocates for both the parties and on perusal of the record and proceedings of the petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the show- cause notice dated 19.03.2004 impugned in this petition. It is an admitted position that the impugned notice is not adjudicated till date. The show- cause notice itself shows that the petitioner Company was registered as 100% EOU with Development Commissioner, KFTZ Gandhidham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (4) or sub-section (5). When the legislature has used the expression where it is possible to do so, it means that if in the ordinary course it is possible to determine the amount of duty within the specified time frame, it should be so done. The legislature has wisely not prescribed a time limit and has specified such time limit where it is possible to do so, for the reason that the adjudicating authority for several reasons may not be in a position to decide the matter within the specified time frame, namely, a large number of witnesses may have to be examined, the record of the case may be very bulky, huge workload, non-availability of an officer, etc. which are genuine reasons for not being able to determine the amount of duty within the stipulated time frame. However, when a matter is consigned to the call book and kept in cold storage for years together, it is not on account of it not being possible for the authority to decide the case, but on grounds which are extraneous to the proceedings. In the opinion of this court, when the legislature in its wisdom has prescribed a particular time limit, the CBEC has no power or authority to extend such time limit for years on end mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 bar. Similar view is also taken by this Court in Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2017(3) GLH, Pooja Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India Ors. reported in MANU/GJ/1996/2017 (SCA/9298 to 9301/2017) and Shivkupa Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, SCA No. 18235 of 2017. 10. This Court is of the opinion that the judgments of this Court as discussed hereinabove would squarely apply to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
