9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to Plot No. 421 Ga area 0.506 hectare and he also submitted that the petitioner was continuing with the mining work on the aforesaid plot alone. However, when final order dated 20.6.2022 was passed, it dealt with illegal mining over Plot No. 421 Kha, which was definitely not the subject matter of the show cause notice dated 31.05.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the show cause notice was with regard to Plot No. 824 Kha, the order ought to have been dealt with illegal mining over Plot No. 824 Kha and no other plot. He has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others; 2011 (14) SCC 770 and submitted that if the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case. 108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadue & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings equally. 109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (dead) by Lrs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice. Even in the grounds of appeals these points have not been taken." 7. Furthermore, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Champdany Industries Ltd., (2009) 9 SCC 466, the Supreme Court has held as under: "38. Apart from that, the point on Rule 3 which has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revenue was not part of its case in the show-cause notice. It is well settled that unless the foundation of the case is made out in the show-cause notice, the Revenue cannot in Court argue a case not made out in its show cause notice. (See Commr. of Customs v. Toyo Engg. India Ltd. [(2006) 7 SCC 592] ) Similar view was expressed by this Court in CCE v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the same assessee." 9. The principle that emerges from the above judgements is patently clear that a show cause notice is required to provide details of the nature of the offence and the grounds on which the show cause notice has been issued. Furthermore, the order that is subsequently passed, based on the show cause notice, cannot go beyond the said show cause notice and cannot in any manner penalise the noticee on grounds that were not stated in the show cause notice. 10. The rationale for not allowing the respondents from going beyond the realm of the show cause notice is that the petitioner has to be given a chance to put up his case with regard to the said show cause notice. In the event, a particular case is made out in the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
