2019 (2) TMI 2017 - HC - FEMA

Validity of SCN as being time barred having been issued after more than 14 years from the date of last export and realization of export proceeds - HELD THAT - A perusal of the writ petition show that the petitioners have not even submitted any reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, without going into the merits of the controversy at this stage, we dispose of the present writ petition by relegating the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before respondent No.2 by way of reply to the show cause notice dated 15.06.2018 (C) within a period of one month. As directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of next one month from the date of receipt of the representation.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning show cause notice as time-barred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioners approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 15.06.2018 as time-barred, issued more than 14 years after the last export and realization of export proceeds. The petitioners did not submit any reply to the notice. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to file a detailed representation to respondent No.2 within one month, raising all pleas mentioned in the writ petition. It was ordered that if a representation is filed within the stipulated time, respondent No.2 must decide on it by passing a speaking order and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within the next month.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the right to be heard in matters of legal significance. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioners to respond to the show cause notice and present their arguments effectively before the concerned authority. By granting the petitioners an opportunity to file a comprehensive representation and ensuring a fair hearing, the Court upheld principles of natural justice and due process. The directive for respondent No.2 to decide on the representation within a specified timeframe further underscores the Court's commitment to expeditious resolution of legal disputes while maintaining procedural fairness.