9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 910 - HC - GSTChallenge to SCN and adjudication order - inordinate, unexplained delay - violaion of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In similar circumstances, this Court has, through its several decisions, quashed the show cause notice and restrained the Respondents from proceeding further with the adjudication, which is inordinately delayed. In this regard, we refer to our decision in the cases of COVENTRY ESTATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ANR. 2023 (8) TMI 352 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , PARESH H. MEHTA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NHAVA SHEVA, (GENERAL) RAIGAD, THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE MUMBAI. 2024 (10) TMI 1412 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , and M/S. ESJAYPEE IMPEX PVT. LTD., SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR P. PARMAR MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. ESJAYPEE IMPEX PVT. LTD., VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, MUMBAI, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT-I) , MUMBAI 2024 (11) TMI 622 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The impugned order is set aside - the Respondents are restrained from taking further steps or proceedings in furtherance of it - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to show-cause notice and adjudication order based on delay in proceedings violating natural justice principles. Analysis: The Petitioner challenged a show-cause notice and subsequent adjudication order due to an inordinate and unexplained delay, arguing a violation of natural justice principles. The Respondent issued the notice on 28 March 2013, and the Petitioner requested copies of documents between April and September 2013 to prepare a reply, which was eventually filed in September 2013. The Respondent scheduled multiple personal hearings between 2014 and 2023, citing delays in adjudication due to frequent changes in adjudicating officers. The Respondents admitted in their affidavit that the Petitioner was not responsible for the delays. The Respondents requested a four-month timeframe to complete the proceedings, subject to cooperation from the Petitioner. The Respondents' counsel argued that the delays were due to accommodating requests from the Petitioner's co-noticees and were justified to prevent any allegations of natural justice failure. However, the Court found the delay to be inordinate and unexplained, causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner. Referring to previous decisions, the Court quashed the show-cause notice and restrained the Respondents from further proceedings. Citing cases like Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Paresh H. Mehta vs. The Union of India, and M/s. Esjaypee Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors., the Court justified its decision to set aside the notice and prevent any future steps based on it. Ultimately, the Court made the Rule absolute without any cost implications, directing all concerned parties to act based on an authenticated copy of the order. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely and fair adjudication processes in upholding natural justice principles and preventing undue prejudice to the parties involved.
|
