9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /JNCH and F. No. SG/Misc-150/2009 SIIB (X) dated 28.03.2013 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Exhibit A) to the Petitioner. The short point on which the aforesaid Show Cause Notice is sought to be challenged is the inordinate delay in adjudicating the said Show Cause Notice. 3. Mr. Prakash Shah, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, brought to our attention the contents of the Show Cause Notice and pointed out that the said Show Cause Notice was issued to several noticees. One of these noticees namely Noticee No. 1, Shri. Pradeep Shubhash Chandra Mehta, had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7539 of 2023, challenging the very same Show Cause Notice on the ground of delay in adjudicating the said Show Ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the said Show Cause Notice. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 28th March, 2013. This Show Cause Notice has not been adjudicated till date (for almost 12 years). A Writ Petition that was filed by a Co-Noticee challenging this very same Show Cause Notice was decided by this Court on 12th November, 2024. The Order passed by this Court in the case of the Co-Noticee is also annexed at Exhibit B to the Petition. What is important to note is that in the reply filed by the Respondents in that Writ Petition, the ground for the delay in adjudication was frequent changes in the Officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 May 2019, 30 May 2019, 14 April 2021, 19 April 2021 and 23 May 2023. The records also show that the Petitioner's representative attended the personal hearing on most dates except for two dates. Paragraph 5 of the reply filed on behalf of Respondents admitted that the Petitioner was not responsible for delayed adjudication. The reason given in paragraph 5 for the delayed adjudication is the frequent changes in officers adjudicating the case. 6. Paragraph 5 of the Respondents' affidavit reads as follows:- "5. With respect to Ground No. C, the respondents state that the department has not alleged that the petitioner has delayed the adjudication. Department is fully committed to complete the adjudication proceedings. However, du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise & Anr. 2023 (10) Centax 38 (Bom), Paresh H. Mehta vs. The Union of India 2024 (10) TMI 1412, and M/s. Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition No.3793 of 2024 decided on 11 November 2024. 10. By adopting the reasoning in the above decisions, we quash and set aside the impugned show-cause notice dated 28 March 2013 and restrain the Respondents from taking further steps or proceedings in furtherance of it. 11. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any order as to cost. 12. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order." (emphasis supplied) 6. Even in the present case, it is not the case of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
