9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y attributable on the part of the Petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent. This Court in case of PARLE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has dealt with the identical situation, where the Show Cause Notice was adjudicated upon after 13 years after the date of issuance. This Court after considering the judgments in the cases of SANGHVI RECONDITIONERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIR CARGO COMPLEX (IMPORT) , THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DRI [ 2017 (12) TMI 906 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where there was delay of 14 to 17 years in adjudicating the proceedings, this Court held that when the revenue keeps the show-cause notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives service. 3. By this Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned the Show Cause Notice dated 16 September 2005 annexed as Exhibit A to the Petition. 4. The Petitioner has filed reply to the Show Cause Notice within four weeks from the date of receipt of the said notice and did not get any further communication from the Respondent for hearing or any adjudication upon the said Show Cause Notice from the Respondent till today. The Petitioner has thus filed this Petition. 5. Mr. Patkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the said Show Cause Notice and also to the averments made by the Respondents, more particularly, paragraph-5 of the Affidavit-in- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the cases of Saghavi Reconditioners Private Limited Vs. Union of India 2018 (12) GSTL 290 and Raymond Limited Vs. Union of India 2019 (368) ELT 481 (Bombay), where there was delay of 14 to 17 years in adjudicating the proceedings, this Court held that when the revenue keeps the show-cause notice in call book then it should inform the parties about the same. It serves two purposes (1) it puts the party to notice that the show-cause notice is still alive and is only kept in abeyance. This would enable the party concerned to safeguard the evidence till the show-cause notice is taken up for adjudication; and (2) if the notices are kept in call book, the parties gets an opportunity to point out to the revenue that the reasons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the gross delay on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Parle International Limited (supra), applies to the facts of this case. We do not propose to take any different view in the matter. Hearing of Show-cause notice belatedly is in violation of natural justice. We, accordingly, pass the following Order:- 11. The Impugned Show-Cause Notice dated 16 September 2005 issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner, annexed as Exhibit A to the Petitioner is quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause- (a) of the Petition. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute. No Order as to costs. 12. Parties to act on an authen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
