9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 278 - HC - CustomsSeeking to quash SCN - Inordinate delay in adjudicating the said Show Cause Notice - HELD THAT - Considering that the SCN has already been quashed and set aside in the case of a Co-Noticee for the very same reasons as set out in PRADEEP SUBHASHCHANDRA MEHTA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2024 (11) TMI 910 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT there are no hesitation in following the same course of action. The impugned Show Cause Notice dated 28th March 2013 is quashed and set aside - petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the inordinate delay in adjudicating the Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner justifies its quashing. The Court also examined whether the same reasoning applied in a previous case involving a Co-Noticee could be applied to the current Petitioner. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Show Cause Notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Unlike Section 28 of the same Act, Section 124 does not prescribe a specific time frame for adjudication. The Court referenced prior decisions where inordinate delays led to the quashing of similar notices, including Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise & Anr. and Paresh H. Mehta vs. The Union of India. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the absence of a statutory time frame under Section 124 but emphasized the principles of natural justice, which require timely adjudication to prevent prejudice against the parties involved. The Court also considered the precedent set by the quashing of the same Show Cause Notice against a Co-Noticee due to similar delays. Key evidence and findings: The Show Cause Notice was issued on March 28, 2013, and had not been adjudicated for nearly 12 years. The Respondents admitted the delay was due to frequent changes in adjudicating officers and not attributable to the Petitioner. The Court found this delay unexplained and inordinate, causing prejudice to the Petitioner. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of natural justice and previous case law to determine that the delay in adjudication violated the Petitioner's rights. The absence of any fault on the Petitioner's part in contributing to the delay further supported the decision to quash the notice. Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondents argued that the absence of a statutory time limit under Section 124 and the occurrence of personal hearings over the years justified the delay. However, the Court found these arguments insufficient, as the delay was primarily due to administrative inefficiencies and not the Petitioner's actions. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the inordinate delay in adjudicating the Show Cause Notice violated the principles of natural justice, warranting its quashing. The same reasoning applied in the case of the Co-Noticee was deemed applicable to the Petitioner. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court stated, "We are satisfied that this is a case of inordinate unexplained delay that has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner." Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that inordinate and unexplained delays in adjudication violate the principles of natural justice, even in the absence of a statutory time frame. Administrative inefficiencies cannot justify such delays when they prejudice the affected parties. Final determinations on each issue: The Court quashed the Show Cause Notice dated March 28, 2013, and restrained the Respondents from proceeding further with it. The decision was consistent with the prior ruling involving the Co-Noticee, emphasizing the importance of timely adjudication in upholding natural justice.
|
