9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 897 - HC - Central ExcisePrinciples of Natural Justice - the petitioners received a notice in the year 2016, alleging that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, way back in the year 2010 and, as such, the respondent No.3 wanted to proceed with the decision on such a show cause notice - the case of petitioner is that they were served with the SCN in the year 2010 and, thereafter, notice for personal appearance was served in January, 2016. Held that - it is not in dispute that there is no consideration by the Authority of the stand taken by the petitioner after receipt of the show cause notice. This itself shows that the respondent No.3 has proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the reply or objections raised by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued in the year 2010. It is also admitted position that the show cause notice was issued in the year 2010 and further, for more than six years no steps were taken by the respondent No.3 to proceed to decide the show cause notice. In this back ground of the facts, granting of some opportunity to the petitioners to file adequate reply to meet the alleged demand by the respondent-Revenue would be justified. It is well settled that any order passed in breach of principles of natural justice, which would substantially affect the rights of the parties, is a nullity in law. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order. 2. Delay in considering the petitioner's response to the show cause notice issued in 2010. 3. Barred by laches and availability of alternate remedy. 4. Nullity of the impugned order due to lack of fair opportunity for the petitioner. Issue 1: Breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order: The petitioner's counsel argued that the order dated 28/03/2017 passed by respondent No.3 did not follow the principles of natural justice. The petitioner claimed they were not given adequate time to respond to a show cause notice issued in 2010. Despite requesting additional time to locate the notice and prepare a reply, the impugned order was issued without granting further time or providing a fair hearing. The court found that the respondent No.3 proceeded without considering the petitioner's objections, leading to a breach of natural justice. Issue 2: Delay in considering the petitioner's response to the 2010 show cause notice: The court noted that the show cause notice was issued in 2010, and for over six years, no steps were taken by respondent No.3 to address it. The lack of consideration of the petitioner's stand after receiving the notice indicated a failure to follow due process. The court emphasized the importance of granting the petitioners an opportunity to respond adequately to the allegations made in the show cause notice. Issue 3: Barred by laches and availability of alternate remedy: The respondents argued that the petition was barred by laches and that the petitioners had an alternate remedy through an appeal. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the impugned order's nullity due to a breach of natural justice was a significant issue that warranted intervention. Issue 4: Nullity of the impugned order due to lack of fair opportunity for the petitioner: The court concluded that the impugned order was a nullity as it was passed in breach of principles of natural justice. Despite the respondent's claim that the petitioners failed to cooperate, the court found that the lack of a fair opportunity for the petitioners to respond and the hasty issuance of the order rendered it invalid. Quashing the order, the court directed respondent No.3 to reconsider the show cause notice, allowing the petitioners to file a reply and ensuring a fair hearing in accordance with the law. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to quash the impugned order and provide the petitioners with a fair opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.
|
