TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. - WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 6097 OF 2020 - - - Dated:- 24-3-2022 - R. D. DHANUKA AND S.M. MODAK, JJ. Mr. Arvind Datar, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Prakash Shah, Mr. Jas Sanghavi, i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Siddharth S. Chandrashekhar for the Respondents. JUDGMENT:- Rule. Mr.Siddharth S.Chandrashekhar waives service for the respondents. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari and quashing and setting aside the impugned (i) Show Cause Notice No. 235/Commr/2011-2012 dated 24th October, 2011 (Exhibit A-1); (ii) Show Cause Notice No. 410/Commr/2012-2013 dated 4th September, 2012 (Exhibit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notices and would submit that though the respondent no.2 had granted personal hearing to the petitioner on 13th February, 2013, 18th June, 2015 and 19th February, 2016, the respondent no.2 did not pass any order on the said show cause notices nor gave any intimation from 2016 onwards which was the last date of hearing nor passed any order till date. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the gross delay on the part of the respondents in not adjudicating upon the show cause notices in last several years. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner has deposited various amounts to the respondents during the course of investigation under the protest which amounts are liable to be refunded to the petitioner. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be processed. The personal hearing was thereafter fixed on 4th November, 2020 via video conferencing mode. The petitioner however did not attend the said hearing. 10. Mr.Datar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder submits that the petitioner was never informed about the transfer of the show cause notices to the call book at any point of time. He submits that the Supreme Court rejected the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Delhi High Court. The reason for transferring the show cause notices to call book was set aside by the Supreme Court. 11. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on section 73(4B) and would submit that the said provision provides for time limit for determining the service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notices. The respondent no.2 never issued any fresh notice for hearing prior to 22nd October, 2020 after 19th February, 2016 nor passed any order on the said show cause notices. 15. The circular relied upon by the respondents for transferring the show cause notices to the call book, clearly indicates that an intimation has to be furnished to the petitioner while transferring the show cause notices to the call book to enable the assessee to challenge the said decision of the respondents. No such intimation was ever given to the petitioner. 16. This Court in case of Parle International Ltd. (supra) after considering the identical facts and after adverting to the judgment in cases of Bhagwandas S. Tolani (supra), Sanghvi Recondi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n with interest @ 12% p.a. 18. This Court in case of The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST CX (supra) after adverting to the judgment in cases of Parle International Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) and Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) has held that when a show-cause notice is issued to a party, it is expected that the same would be taken to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period so that a finality is reached. If the respondent would have informed the petitioner about the said Show-Cause Notice having been kept in call book when the same were transferred to call book, in the year 2011 itself, the Petitioner would have immediately applied for appropriate reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
