TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 743
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lding separate service tax registrations with their respective jurisdictional Commissionerate; accordingly, the Delhi office of the Petitioner was holding Service Tax Registration No.AABCA2731NST002 under the jurisdiction of Range-12, Service Tax Division-II, Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi. 3. Pursuant to an audit conducted for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08, the Delhi office of the Petitioner was issued a Show Cause cum Demand Notice No.59 of 2009 dated 12 October 2009 (the "show cause cum demand notice") by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why : "(i) Service tax amounting to Rs.5,07,70,296/-; Education Cess and Secondary High Education Cess amounting to Rs.14,02,755/-, as detailed in para 3 of the show cause notice, should not be demanded under Section 66, 67 and 68 of the Act and Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") and recovered by invoking extended period of limitation as provided under proviso to subsection (1) of Section 73 of the Act. (ii) Service tax amounting to Rs. 48,22,124/-; Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess amounting to Rs. 81,580/-, as detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pdate the records, but despite the same, the files pertaining to the said show cause cum demand notice were not transferred to the Respondent No.2, and instead, the Petitioner was issued personal hearing notice dated 17 April 2013 by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-III. 8. Thereafter, vide letter dated 8 May 2013, the Petitioner informed the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III that the Petitioner had obtained centralized registration under the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2 and requested to transfer the files to Respondent No.2. Mr. Paranjape submits that despite the same, Respondent No.2 neither took any steps to transfer the files nor to adjudicate the show cause cum demand notice. 9. Mr. Paranjape would submit that it is only in the year 2020 i.e. after a period of seven years from the date of communication of centralized registration, vide letter bearing No. F.No.V-Adj/CGST-NM/APL/ST/15-93/2017-18 dated 3 August 2020, 10 August 2020 and 24 August 2020, that the Petitioner was called for personal hearing in respect of the subject show cause cum demand notice, which were replied to vide emails dated 6 August 2020, 23 August 2020 and 8 September 2020 wherein Respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2022 (380) E.L.T. 244 (Bom.)] 13. Mr. Paranjape submits that, therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief : "(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records pertaining to the Petitioner's case and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash and set aside the Show Cause Cum Demand Notice No. 59/09 dated 12.10.2009 [Exhibit "A"], pending for adjudication before the Respondent No.2." 14. On 8 October 2020, this Court had directed that no final order be passed by the Respondents pursuant to the show cause notice dated 12 October 2009 which order has been continued till date. 15. Mr. Jetly, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents, would submit that the show cause cum demand notice dated 12 October 2009 came to be issued to the Petitioner pursuant to an audit conducted for the period 2004-05 to 2007-08 which was addressed to the Delhi Office of the Petitioner and which was acknowledged by the Petitioner. The learned Senior Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Adjudicating Authority, and therefore, this Petition deserves to be dismissed. 19 It is not in dispute that pursuant to Trade Notice No.3/2011-S.T. issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai, upon grant of Centralized Service Tax Registration to the assessee, it was the duty of the Divisional Officer to send intimation to the respective jurisdictional Service Tax Office-in-charge of erstwhile branch office and to transfer the relevant records to its office for taking further action and to update the records. 20. The show cause cum demand notice in the instant case has been issued on 12 October 2009 and although the Petitioner had obtained Centralized Service Tax Registration under the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2 with effect from 9 September 2010, even though as per the Trade Notice, referred to above, after centralized registration, it was the duty of the Divisional Officer to send intimation and to transfer the relevant records for taking further action, the records, admittedly, came to be transferred only on 24 January 2019. 21. Not only that, even the Petitioner had, vide letter dated 8 May 2013, informed the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the Act can never be disputed, at the same time they do not have the unfettered right to choose a time for its termination and conclude proceedings as per their convenience. Indeed, the words 'reasonable period' call for a flexible rather than a rigid construction having regard to the facts of each case, but the period in excess of two decades without the respondents sufficiently explaining as to what prevented them to conclude the proceedings has to be seen as unreasonable and the reasons assigned in the affidavit-in-reply as mere excuses for not adjudicating the show-cause notice according to law. Law is well-settled that when a power is conferred to achieve a particular object, such power has to be exercised reasonably, rationally and with objectivity with the object in view. It would amount to an arbitrary exercise of power if proceedings initiated in 1997 are not taken to their logical conclusion for over two decades and then a prayer is made for its early conclusion, no sooner than the matter enters the portals of this Court. We agree with the decision in Parle International Limited (supra) to the extent it lays down the law that the proceedings should be conclud....