TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication and at that point of time it was not pointed out by the applicant that the show cause notice was never transferred to the call book. This Court has perused the documents on record wherein it is revealed that it is undisputed fact that the issue involved in the show cause notice was for the year 2003 and on 28-12-2017, the petitioner made detailed reply along with the submissions by relying upon the decision in case of SIDDHI VINAYAK SYNTEX PVT LTD. VERSUS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 [ 2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . In such circumstances, it was held by the Court that the show cause notice was kept in abeyance for more than 14 years. Therefore, in absence of any material on record to justify the submissions made, the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 10-4-2018 confirming the demand was passed without considering the written submissions of the petitioner. It was therefore held that the action on the part of the authorities to keep the show cause notice for long period and thereafter reviving it to confirm the order of the demand as has been held in various decisions resulted in infraction of the principle of natural justice rendering the show-cause notice as well as the consequent order vitiated. 6. The Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval submitted that this Court followed the decision in case of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2017 (352) E.L.T. 455 (Guj.) which is challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court, the same issue of call book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Silks and the petitioner was proprietor of the said firm and by the said show cause notice asked the petitioner to show cause as stated in said notice dated 29-12-2003. He also submitted that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing, but the petitioner himself sought adjournment to prolong the proceeding. He further submitted that present petition of petitioner is an afterthought action after receipt of an adverse adjudication order from the adjudicating authority. He therefore, urged to dismiss the petition. 8. Thereafter this Court has perused the documents on record wherein it is revealed that it is undisputed fact that the issue involved in the show cause notice was for the year 2003 and on 28-12-2017, the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
