2022 (3) TMI 1169 - HC - Service Tax

Violation of principles of natural justice - grant of personal hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT - The respondent having issued the Show-Cause notice, it is their duty to take the the said Show-Cause notice to its logical conclusion by adjudicating upon the said Show-Cause Notice within a reasonable period of time. In view of gross delay on the part of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. This Court accordingly was pleased to quash and set aside dated 16 th September 2005 in that matter. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition under Article 226 for quashing show cause notices and seeking consequential reliefs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Writ of Certiorari:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash several show cause notices issued by the respondent. The petitioner responded to these notices, requested to drop the demands, and attended personal hearings. However, no orders were passed on the show cause notices, leading to a delay in adjudication.

2. Delay in Adjudication:
The petitioner argued that the delay in adjudicating the show cause notices was unjust, causing hardship due to the inaction of the respondents. The petitioner highlighted the provisions of section 73(4B) regarding the time limit for determining service tax dues, emphasizing that the notices should have been adjudicated within a year.

3. Transfer to Call Book:
The respondents transferred the show cause notices to the call book without informing the petitioner. The petitioner contended that this transfer was not communicated, and the Supreme Court had rejected the reasoning behind this action. The lack of intimation to the petitioner was a crucial point raised by the petitioner.

4. Judicial Precedents:
Both parties relied on various judicial precedents to support their arguments. The petitioner cited cases emphasizing expeditious adjudication and the adverse impact of delays on the petitioner. The respondents referred to a Delhi High Court judgment and subsequent actions taken after the transfer of files to the call book.

5. Court's Decision:
The Court, after considering the arguments and precedents, ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court noted the delay in adjudication, lack of intimation regarding the transfer to the call book, and the duty of the respondents to conclude proceedings within a reasonable period. Consequently, the Court quashed the show cause notices and directed the respondents to refund the amount recovered during the investigation with interest.

6. Conclusion:
The Court's decision highlighted the importance of timely adjudication, the duty of authorities to inform parties about procedural actions, and the need to prevent undue hardship to petitioners due to delays. The judgment emphasized the principles of law established in previous cases and provided relief to the petitioner based on these principles.