9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision, which was being implemented. 3. The respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners importantly raised that the order impugned is hit by the Rule of Limitation and thus, the Authorities have no jurisdiction to issue the order impugned. It is passed beyond the period of two years. Thus, liable to be set aside. 4. It is contended that the policy benefit availed are sought to be recovered merely based on the audit objection raised. Audit objections are raised based on the erroneous interpretation of the terms of the Scheme and beyond the scope of the Scheme and thus, the very initiation of recovery proceedings are in violation of the Scheme benefits as promised by the respondents. 5. Even on merits, the petitioners have raised several grounds. The extent of the Scheme benefits conferred and utilisation etc., which all are stated by the petitioners in their affidavits and during submissions. 6. This Court raised a question that an order impugned is the order admittedly passed pursuant to the audit objection raised by the Department of Audit. Thus, in the absence of any adjudication whether the High Court would be in a position to form an opinion with refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of considering the importance involved for adjudication of the disputed issues. 14. Let us look into the order impugned dated 13.02.2015. It is no doubt states that the recovery of excess due credit issued from Status Holder Incentive Scrip (SHIS) License. However, perusal of the order impugned would reveal that the audit objection is the ground for issuing the order requesting to repay the entire duty credit availed by the petitioners. 15. The order impugned further states that the petitioners are requested to repay the entire duty credit availed by them. Thus, for all purposes, it is the demand made by the respondents to repay the SHIS scrip availed by the petitioners. 16. A demand notice or an unadjudicated recovery notice or a show cause notice are to be treated as akin, as show cause notices are issued seeking explanations from the petitioners by setting out the allegations. The demand notices are issued by informing the proposed decision arrived at based on the Rules, Regulations or Guidelines and asking the Addressee to comply with the demand and in such circumstances, the persons who receive the demand notice has an option to comply with the demand or to rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned demand is made by passing an order of recovery. However, there was no adjudication of merits or otherwise, with reference to the contentions raised between the parties. 21. The petitioners raised various grounds on merits as well as the ground of limitation. The Quasi Judicial Authorities/Appellate Authorities are empowered to adjudicate factual aspects and also the legal grounds, including the point of limitation. When effective alternate remedy or opportunities are made available to the aggrieved persons, such adjudications need not be dispensed with by the High Court in a routine manner. In the event of adjudication of issues and in the absence of exhausting the alternate statutory remedies, it would not only be premature, but there is a possibility of miscarriage. Thus, at all circumstances, the aggrieved persons are expected to exhaust the alternate remedy contemplated under law. 22. The learned counsels for the petitioners urged this Court by stating that the point of limitation alone is sufficient to set aside the order impugned as it is passed beyond the period of two years, which is contemplated. Further, the Authorities have no jurisdiction or Authority to issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral factual aspects are also to be considered for the purpose of deciding the case on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the Courts cannot adopt an arithmetic procedure of comparing the dates and to quash the orders on the ground of limitation. 26. Therefore, all such disputed facts and legal grounds are required to be adjudicated elaborately by the Competent Authorities as well as by the Appellate Authorities. Now the impugned order has been passed by the Original Authority by way of recovery without conducting any adjudication by providing an opportunity to the petitioners. Thus, the impugned orders cannot be construed as a final order for the purpose of considering the merits and also the legal grounds raised between the parties. 27. When it is not a final order, this Court is of an opinion that the Authorities must adjudicate the issues on merits. When the point of adjudication comes, then it is to be placed before the Competent Authorities for effective adjudication and to take a final decision by conducting an enquiry and by affording opportunities to the parties concerned. 28. In view of the fact that the order impugned is passed merely based on the audit objection wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
