2016 (1) TMI 737 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of adjudication order passed 17 months after the personal hearing was over - It was contended that this unreasonable and unexplained delay itself vitiates the conclusion reached in the impugned order. - Held that - In view of this affidavit and the stand taken by the Commissioner, we set aside the impugned order only on the ground of delay and which is long, unreasonable and unexplained in passing the adjudication order. - The impugned order dated 23rd January 2014 is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The show cause notice shall be adjudicated afresh and on appearance of the Petitioner a fresh order would be passed by the Adjudicating Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of conclusion of personal hearing. - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging delay in passing adjudication order after personal hearing.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 23rd January 2014, citing a significant delay of 17 months in passing the order after the conclusion of the personal hearing. The contention raised was that such unreasonable and unexplained delay tainted the conclusion reached in the impugned order.

2. The Respondent, represented by Mr. Kantharia, submitted an Affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in passing the impugned order. The Affidavit by Mr. R. Sekhar, the Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai, acknowledged the long delay and attributed it to administrative and other difficulties. Mr. Kantharia assured the court that efforts would be made to expedite the disposal of pending cases.

3. Considering the Affidavit and the assurance given by the Commissioner, the Court set aside the impugned order solely on the grounds of the long, unreasonable, and unexplained delay in passing the adjudication order.

4. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23rd January 2014 was quashed and set aside. The show cause notice was directed to be adjudicated afresh, and a fresh order was to be passed by the Adjudicating Authority within 30 days from the conclusion of the personal hearing.

5. The Petitioner was instructed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on a specified date, and the Authority was directed to issue a fresh order without being influenced by the earlier conclusion.

6. The Writ Petition was allowed with no order as to costs, concluding the judgment on the basis of the unreasonable delay in passing the adjudication order after the personal hearing.