2024 (10) TMI 912 - HC - Customs

Challenge to SCN issued u/s 28, 124, etc. of the Customs Act primarily on the ground of delay in adjudicating the show cause notice until today - HELD THAT - The issue of delay in adjudication of the show cause notice came up for consideration in the cases of Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (12) TMI 906 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Reliance Industries Ltd. 2020 (1) TMI 283 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , and this Court quashed the show cause notice on the ground of delay in adjudication of the said notice. In our view, the petitioner s case stands on a firmer footing because in the case of the petitioner, the delay is more than 20 years from the date of the show cause notice, whereas, in the case of Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd., the delay was of 15 years since show cause notice was quashed in the year 2017. Merely because the petitioner did not file the writ petition after the order was passed in the cases of Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd. but has filed the petition now, the same cannot be a ground for not following the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of co-noticees. In the absence of the assessee being informed about his case being transferred to the call book, justification for the delay in adjudication cannot be accepted. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice under Customs Act on grounds of delay in adjudication.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 challenging a show cause notice issued under the Customs Act primarily due to the delay in adjudicating the notice. The petitioner argued that the notice dated 28 March 2002 had not been adjudicated for over 20 years, citing previous court decisions where similar notices were quashed due to delays. The respondents contended that the case was transferred to call book and relied on the pendency of another case before the Supreme Court as reasons for the delay. The court noted that common show cause notices were issued to other parties as well and that the delay in the petitioner's case was longer than in previous cases where notices were quashed. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the petitioner was responsible for the delay due to not filing the petition earlier after the previous court decisions, emphasizing that the delay in adjudication was the key issue. The court also dismissed the respondent's defense regarding the case being transferred to call book without informing the petitioner, stating that such information should have been provided regardless of statutory provisions. Another case was cited where the issue of delay in adjudication due to lack of information provided to the assessee was considered, reinforcing the importance of informing parties about such transfers. The petitioner challenged the current petition in 2023 after receiving a notice attempting to revive the 2002 show cause notice. The court made the rule absolute and quashed the impugned notices and orders, disposing of the petition without costs.