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

2022 (2) TMI 1082

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ces, the petitioner was not expected to preserve the evidence/record intact for such a long period of more than 11 years. We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. In our view, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not adjudicating upon the show cause notice for a period of 11 years and proposing to pass an order would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner - there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the inquiry is allowed to be proceeded with at this stage. In view of the gross delay on the part of the respondents, if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arges. It is the case of the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer neither furnished any documents nor granted any personal hearing. After few years, the petitioner was informed that due to administrative reasons a new Inquiry Officer was appointed to continue the inquiry. 4. On 10th February, 2015, the petitioner through its advocate made a representation and requested the new Inquiry Officer to supply documents. On 19th February, 2015 and 24th February, 2015, the petitioner was served with personal hearing notice stating that a preliminary inquiry was proposed to be held on 24th February, 2015. On 24th February, 2015, the Director of petitioner along with its advocate attended personal hearing and denied the charges raised against them. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iry for several years and also did not furnish any documents. He submits that during the pendency of petition, the Inquiry Officer sent email on 1st July, 2021, furnishing some of the documents requisition made by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court delivered on 14th February, 2022 in Writ Petition No. 2874 of 2021 filed by the Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited v/s. Deputy Commissioner of CGST CX, Div-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissioner and would submit that in that matter also this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the inquiry proceedings which were pending for long time. He submits that the principles laid down by this Court in the said judgment would apply .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dly called upon the respondents to supply certain documents to enable the petitioner to file a reply to Article of Charges. A perusal of the record indicates that between 2009-14, the earlier Inquiry Officer neither supplied any documents to the petitioner nor proceeded with the inquiry. The said Inquiry Officer was replaced by another Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was served with notice and was offered personal hearing only on 19th February, 2015 and 24th February, 2015. Though the petitioner asked for documents to the second Inquiry Officer repeatedly neither any documents were furnished nor any date of hearing was fixed. The petitioner thus filed this petition. 14. During the pendency of this petition, the Inquiry Officer appears to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. In our view, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not adjudicating upon the show cause notice for a period of 11 years and proposing to pass an order would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. The principles of law laid down by this Court in case of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited (supra) apply to the facts of this case. We do not propose to take any different view in this matter. 18. There is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the inquiry is allowed to be proceede .....

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