Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice 2024 (11) TMI 622 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - HC

Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Judgement on Quashing of Show Cause Notice Due to Inordinate Delay Reported as: 2024 (11) TMI 622 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Introduction This article provides a comprehensive analysis of a recent judgment delivered by the High Court concerning the quashing of a show cause notice issued by the customs authorities due to inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication. The judgment delves into the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and the consequences of unreasonable delay in adjudication proceedings. Arguments Presented The petitioners, importers, challenged the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in 2003 and the subsequent personal hearing notice issued in 2024, citing inordinate and unexplained delay in the adjudication process. The respondents, the customs authorities, contended that the delay was attributable to the petitioners' failure to comply with the directions of the Tribunal to seek inspection of documents and file a reply within the stipulated time. Discussions and Findings of the Court Inordinate and Unexplained Delay The Court found that the delay in disposing of the show cause notice was inordinate and unexplained. Despite the Tribunal's directions to dispose of the matter within six months from the receipt of its order dated 10.09.2008, the adjudicating authority failed to do so without any compelling reasons. The Court emphasized that the timeline indicated by the Tribunal, though not sacrosanct, could not be extended for nearly six years without justification. Prejudice to the Petitioners The Court acknowledged that the inordinate delay in adjudication would cause irretrievable prejudice to the petitioners, as vital evidence might be lost or become untraceable over time. The Court highlighted that keeping the sword of the show cause notice hanging over the petitioners for over 21 years would make it impossible for them to plan their business or make provisions for contingent liabilities. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The Court held that the delayed adjudication, wholly attributable to the revenue authorities, was in contravention of procedural fairness and violated the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice are now accepted as concomitants of the right to non-arbitrariness guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution . Any action that is unfair and violates the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Reliance on Precedents The Court extensively relied on various precedents, including Coventry Estates Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner CGST and Central Excise Anr. - 2023 (8) TMI 352 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and Eastern Agencies Aromatics (P) Ltd. Versus The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, The Commissioner of Customs-IV (Export) , The Additional Director General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, The Principal Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Uttar Pradesh - 2022 (12) TMI 323 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , Parle International Limited Versus Union of India and others - 2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , and Raymond Limited Versus The Union of India through the Ministry of Finance and Anr. - 2019 (8) TMI 962 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , which emphasized the importance of adjudicating show cause notices within a reasonable time and quashing proceedings in cases of inordinate and unexplained delay. Analysis and Decision by the Court The Court, after a thorough examination of the facts, circumstances, and legal principles, quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notice and the personal hearing notice. The Court held that the inordinate delay in adjudication was unexplained and unjustified, and the reasons provided by the respondents were unsatisfactory. The Court emphasized that the petitioners could not be made to suffer for the lethargy and callousness on the part of the revenue authorities. Doctrine or Legal Principle Discussed The judgment primarily discussed and deliberated upon the doctrine of natural justice and the principles of procedural fairness in the context of adjudication proceedings. The Court reiterated that any action that is unfair and violates the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained, and inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication contravenes these principles. Comprehensive Summary The High Court, in this landmark judgment, quashed the show cause notice issued by the customs authorities due to inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication, spanning over two decades. The Court emphasized the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and the consequences of unreasonable delay in adjudication proceedings. The judgment relied heavily on precedents that highlighted the importance of adjudicating show cause notices within a reasonable time and quashing proceedings in cases of inordinate and unexplained delay. The Court found that the delay in disposing of the show cause notice was inordinate and unexplained, and the reasons provided by the respondents were unsatisfactory. The Court acknowledged that the inordinate delay would cause irretrievable prejudice to the petitioners, as vital evidence might be lost or become untraceable over time. The Court emphasized that keeping the sword of the show cause notice hanging over the petitioners for over 21 years would make it impossible for them to plan their business or make provisions for contingent liabilities. The Court held that the delayed adjudication, wholly attributable to the revenue authorities, was in contravention of procedural fairness and violated the principles of natural justice. The Court reiterated that any action that is unfair and violates the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained, and inordinate and unexplained delay in adjudication contravenes these principles. Ultimately, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notice and the personal hearing notice, restraining the respondents from proceeding further in the matter. The judgment serves as a significant precedent in upholding the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in adjudication proceedings, emphasizing the importance of timely adjudication and the consequences of inordinate and unexplained delay. Full Text : 2024 (11) TMI 622 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT