9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 709 - HC - CustomsValidity of SCN - Seeking quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 19th October, 2012 primarily on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay in adjudicating the show cause notice - HELD THAT - The Affidavit-in-Reply does not indicate when the show cause notice first transferred to the call book. Moreover the High Court dismissed the Appeal of Respondents in Greenwich on 6th September, 2018. The Hon ble Apex Court dismissed Respondent s Appeal on 1st April, 2019. Only on 22nd November, 2019, the show cause notice, it is stated, was taken out of the call book, but still Respondents did nothing - Moreover, it is Respondents own case in the Affidavit-in-Reply that the issue in the show cause notice issued to Petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by CESTAT in the matter of Greenwich. The Appeal was dismissed by High Court and the Hon ble Apex Court has also dismissed the Appeal of Respondents. Therefore the order in Greenwich passed by CESTAT has attained finality. Since in the Affidavit-in-Reply Respondents accept that the order of CESTAT covers the issue in this matter as well, it would, in our view serve no purpose in adjudicating the show cause notice. It would be a futile exercise. The show cause notice dated 19th October, 2012 is hereby quashed - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Delay in adjudicating show cause notice, failure to inform party about transfer to call book, violation of principles of natural justice, finality of order in related case. Analysis: 1. Delay in Adjudicating Show Cause Notice: The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari, Mandamus, or any other Writ under Article 226 to quash a show cause notice due to significant delay in adjudication. The petitioner filed a reply to the notice between 2018 and 2019 but received no response despite numerous follow-up letters. The court noted that while the delay until the filing of the reply in 2014 was due to the petitioner's inaction, there was no satisfactory explanation for the lack of adjudication from 2014 onwards. The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication and criticized the respondent for not taking necessary actions promptly. 2. Failure to Inform Party About Transfer to Call Book: The court highlighted the necessity of informing the party when a show cause notice is transferred to the call book. The respondent's argument that the delay was justified due to a related case pending in the High Court and subsequently the Apex Court was deemed insufficient. The court found that the respondent's failure to inform the petitioner about the transfer to the call book and the subsequent delay in adjudication violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. 3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The court emphasized that delayed adjudication, especially for over a decade without informing the party, undermines the purpose of issuing show cause notices and violates natural justice principles. The court held that the respondent's actions were unjustified, and the petitioner was put in a position of irretrievable prejudice due to the lack of information and delayed adjudication. The court found the respondent's arguments regarding circulars and justifications for delay to be unsubstantiated and unintelligible. 4. Finality of Order in Related Case: The court noted that the issue in the show cause notice was covered by a final order in a related case where the Appeals were dismissed by the High Court and the Apex Court. As the order in the related case had attained finality and covered the issue in the present matter, the court deemed adjudicating the show cause notice a futile exercise. Consequently, the court quashed the show cause notice dated 19th October, 2012, and directed the department to refund certain amounts paid during the investigation in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the judgment by the Bombay High Court, delivered by K.R. Shriram & A. S. Doctor, JJ., addressed the issues of delay in adjudicating a show cause notice, failure to inform the party about the transfer to the call book, violation of principles of natural justice, and the finality of the order in a related case. The court emphasized the importance of timely adjudication, procedural fairness, and adherence to natural justice principles while quashing the impugned show cause notice and directing the refund of certain amounts paid during the investigation.
|
