9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order vitiated - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - R/Special Civil Application No. 7143 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2019 - S.R. Brahmbhatt and A.G. Uraizee, JJ. Shri Amal Paresh Dave and Paresh M. Dave, for the Petitioner. Shri Nirzar S. Desai, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT The petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs : (a) That Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, completely and permanently prohibiting the Respondents, their servants and agents from taking any action against the Petitioner in pursuance of Show Cause Notice F. No. DRI/AZU/Misc.-38/02, dated 29-12-2003 (Annexure- B ) and OIO No. AHM-CUSTM-000-COM-001-18-19, dated 10-4-2018 (Annexure- D ); (b) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside OIO No. AHM-CUSTM-000-COM-001-18-19, dated 10-4-2018 (Annexure- D ); (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice. In response to the aforesaid request, the photocopy of the show cause notice was given to the petitioner after 2/3 days. 2.6 The petitioner submitted a letter/reply to the show cause notice dated 28-12-2017 and brought to the notice of the Respondent No. 2 that no document relevant for the show cause notice was given and revival of adjudication proceedings after 14 years was a violation of principles of natural justice as well as not permissible as held by this Hon ble Court in case of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2017(352) E.L.T. 455 and M/s. Parimal Textiles v. Union of India reported in 2018(8) G.S.T.L. 361 (Guj.). as well as Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. Ors. v. Union of India - 2018 (360) E.L.T. 493 (Guj.) decided by this Hon ble Court vide order dated 28-6-2017 passed in Special Civil Application No. 20125 of 2016. 2.7 The Respondent No. 2 passed an adjudication order on 10-4-2018 confirming the liabilities proposed in the show cause notice dated 29-12-2003 and held that there was no time limit laid down under the Act for concluding adjudication proceedings. Hence, present petition. 3. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that present petition of petitioner is an afterthought action after receipt of an adverse adjudication order from the adjudicating authority. He therefore, urged to dismiss the petition. 6. We have heard Learned Advocates of either side and we have also perused the documents on record. It is undisputed fact that the issue involved in the impugned show cause notice had for the year 2003. On 28-12-2017, the petitioner made detailed reply along with submissions by relying the decisions in the case of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), M/s. Parimal Textiles (supra) and Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. (supra). 7. It is also undisputed fact that the respondents after keeping the impugned show cause notice in the call book, have not chosen to follow up it for unduly long period. It is very evident from the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents that on 29-12-2003, the show cause notice was issued and thereafter, nothing has been done by the respondent though petitioners filed detailed reply/written submissions in respect of the said show cause notice. Thereafter, on 10-4-2018, after a period of 14 years, the respondent passed the order by confirming the demand again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date of the notice in respect of cases falling under sub-section (1) and one year from the date of the notice in respect of cases falling under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) . When the legislature has used the expression where it is possible to do so , it means that if in the ordinary course it is possible to determine the amount of duty within the specified time frame, it should be so done. The legislature has wisely not prescribed a time limit and has specified such time limit where it is possible to do so, for the reason that the adjudicating authority for several reasons may not be in a position to decide the matter within the specified time frame, namely, a large number of witnesses may have to be examined, the record of the case may be very bulky, huge workload, non-availability of an officer, etc. which are genuine reasons for not being able to determine the amount of duty within the stipulated time frame. However, when a matter is consigned to the call book and kept in cold storage for years together, it is not on account of it not being possible for the authority to decide the case, but on grounds which are extraneous to the proceedings. In the opinion of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished by the noticee and based thereupon, recording findings that concerned authorized person of the petitioner Company, who also is the signatory to this petition, did receive the notice and therefore, it cannot be in any manner correct on the part of the petitioners to say that there was no knowledge of existence of show cause notice dated 22-8-2002. We are of the view that this contention needs to be examined in light of the principles underlying the law, which is by now settled that inordinate delay in adjudication results into denial of principles of natural justice and that proposition cannot be said to be nonest in the present proceedings. The receipt of notice dated 22-8-2002 and findings recorded thereon would pale into insignificance, if the same is to be viewed in light of observations of the Court in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. (supra) and other decisions cited as bar. 11. The ground of alternative remedy is also does not impress this Court in any manner, as there is clear violation of principles of natural justice, which cannot be overlooked by any authority, therefore, this ground is also not available to respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
