2019 (12) TMI 117 - HC - Central Excise

Stay on issuance of SCN - SCN has been issued by the respondent authority after a period of more than 18 years - HELD THAT - In the present case admittedly the entry in question was mutated in the revenue record on 22.03.2001 which was subsequently certified on 03.08.2001. Now the impugned show cause notice is issued by the respondent on 09.10.2019 i.e. after a period of more than 18 years alleging that there is breach of provisions contained under Section 54 of the Saurashtra Gharkhed Tenancy Settlement and Agricultural Lands Ordinance 1949. Issue involved in the present petition requires consideration - notice returnable on 27.02.2020. In the meantime proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice are stayed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in issuance of show cause notice after 18 years.
2. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain a petition challenging the notice.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions regarding the timeline for initiating proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners argued that the show cause notice issued by the respondent after a delay of more than 18 years should be stayed. They relied on a decision by the Division Bench of the Court in a previous case. The issue raised was whether the delay in issuing the notice warranted its stay.

2. The Assistant Government Pleader cited a Supreme Court decision regarding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain such petitions. The Supreme Court emphasized that excise law is a complete code, and objections should first be raised before the issuing authority. The court noted that a mere show cause notice may not be a sufficient ground for a writ petition.

3. The Court observed that the impugned notice was issued long after the relevant entry in the revenue record, alleging a breach of statutory provisions. The Division Bench had previously considered a similar issue and held that if the initiation of a show cause notice is without jurisdiction or barred by delay, the court may entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Referring to another Supreme Court decision, the Division Bench reiterated that questions of limitation could be considered jurisdictional. The Court acknowledged that ordinarily, challenging the validity of a notice alone may not warrant a writ petition, especially when there are remedies available under the relevant statute. However, in cases where the statutory authority cannot determine the reasonable period for exercising its jurisdiction, the court may intervene.

5. Considering the precedents and legal interpretations, the Court found that the issue raised in the present petition required further consideration. Therefore, the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice were stayed until the next hearing date. Direct service of the order was permitted for compliance.