TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tend the so-called personal hearing granted in 2015 and 2017. There is no explanation provided by the Respondents explaining delay in adjudication. The delay in completion of the adjudication proceedings for a period of almost 10 years cannot be attributed to the Petitioner and further in the absence of the delay having been explained by the Respondents, the impugned notices ought to be quashed - it cannot be expected that oblivious to the above position in law as also the mandate of Section 73(4B) of the CGST Act, the adjudicating officer would nonetheless proceed to adjudicate the show-cause notice. Petition allowed. - G.S. KULKARNI, AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Prasad Paranjpe. For the Respondents : Mr. Ram Ochani. ORAL ORDER (PER JITENDRA JAIN, J) Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waives service. By consent of the parties heard finally. 2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following substantial 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 un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reproduced hereinabove. 4. Submissions of the Petitioner: The Petitioner contended that the revenue has not taken any action since 2010 for completion of the adjudication proceedings initiated by issuing various show-cause notices referred to above. The Petitioner submits that such a long delay in completing the adjudication proceedings is contrary to the scheme of the Service tax Act. The Petitioner further contended that they are seriously prejudiced to attend the adjudication proceedings at such a belated stage. The Petitioner further contended that on an identical issue in their own case in Writ Petition no. 1313 of 2021 and the judgment dated 25th July 2023 in the case of Coventry Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Anr. Writ Petition No. 4082 of 2022, this court has quashed the show cause notice which was pending adjudication for almost 10 years. 5. Submission of the Respondents: The Respondents have contended that personal hearing was granted on 4th August 2015 vide Letter F. No.V-Adj./ST-II/APL(I)/15-178/2011 dated 23rd July 2015 issued by the Adjudication Section of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai Commissionerate. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complete the adjudication proceedings ex-parte if the Petitioner, as alleged by the Respondents, did not attend the so-called personal hearing granted in 2015 and 2017. There is no explanation provided by the Respondents explaining delay in adjudication. 9. Thus, in our view, the delay in completion of the adjudication proceedings for a period of almost 10 years cannot be attributed to the Petitioner and further in the absence of the delay having been explained by the Respondents, the impugned notices ought to be quashed. 10. In the context in hand, we may usefully refer to the decision of this Court in Coventry Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Anr. (supra). In such decision, considering the relevant provisions of the Finance Act 1994, and the principles of law as laid down in several decisions in regard to the delayed adjudication of the show cause notice namely in the decisions in Sushitex Exports (India) Ltd. Vs. Union of India Ors. 2022 SCC Online Bom. 191, Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST and CX, DIV-IX, Mumbai Central GST Commissionerate 2022 (382) E.L.T. 206 (Bom.) and ATA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her under Section 73(4B) of six months and one year respectively or of five years under Section 73(1). 17. In our opinion, in the facts of the present case, such requirement and obligation the law would mandate is completely overlooked by the officer responsible for adjudicating the show cause notice. We are not shown any provision, which in any manner would permit any authority to condone such inordinate delay on the part of the adjudicating officer to adjudicate show cause notice. There can be none, as the legislature has clearly intended to avoid uncertainty, which otherwise can emerge. Thus, what would become applicable are the settled principles of law as laid down in catena of judgments, that the period within which such adjudication should happen is as mandated by law and in any case it needs to be done within a reasonable period from the issuance of the show cause notice. Further, whether such period is a reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 18. An inordinate delay is seriously prejudicial to the assessee and the law itself would manifest to weed out any uncertainty on adjudication of a show cause notice, and that too kee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of the case before the Court. It also cannot be said that any concrete proposition of law has been laid down in the said order to the effect that even if there exists a gross, unjustifiable and inordinate delay in adjudication of the show cause notice, the Revenue could nonetheless proceed to adjudicate the same. Mr. Adik would also fairly submit that such position in law cannot be derived from such decision. Also the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra) would not assist the revenue, inasmuch as the said decision has not considered the views expressed in the different decisions, which we have noted hereinabove, as the same is rendered purely in the facts and circumstances as set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment. 27. In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to allow this petition and the same is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 11. The above observations are applicable in the facts of the present case as it cannot be expected that oblivious to the above position in law as also the mandate of Section 73(4B) of the CGST Act, the adjudicating officer would non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
