9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice No.Commr/ST-V/68/2016 dated 16th March 2016 issued by the respondent nos.2, 3 & 4 (Exhibit "A1(Colly)" and impugned letter dated 12th April 2021 & 3rd July 2021 (Exhibit "A2(Colly)"). 3. The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the impugned show cause notices are void and bad-in-law in view of non-adjudication after a lapse of nearly 10 years from the date of issuance of first show cause notice. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this petition are as under:- 4. It is the case of the petitioner that during the period between 2006 and 2015, the petitioner was engaged in the activity of buying and selling space in vessel. The petitioner recovered the expenses from its clients to facilitate export/import of goods for providing cargo handling/ freight service incurred expenses. During the period between 21st October 2011 and 16th March 2016, the respondent no.2 issued the following show cause notices :- (i) Show Cause Notice dated 21st October 2011 (for the period 200607 to 2010-11); (ii) Centralised Show Cause Notice dated 8th October 2012 (for the period 2011-12); (iii) Centralised Show Cause Notice No.69/ADC/2013-14 dated 30th September 2013 (for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and more particularly paragraphs 6.1 and 6.1.4 of the said affidavit dated 21st February 2022 and submits that the so called decision of the respondent no.2 to transfer the show cause notices to call book was never communicated to the petitioner earlier. He submits that the terms and conditions of the Circular dated 10th March 2017 relied upon by the respondents in the affidavit were also not satisfied. 11. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Parle International Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2021 (375) E.L.T. 633 (Bom.); (ii) Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 290 (Bom.); (iii) Sushitex Exports India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Anr. 2022-TIOL-123-HC-MUM-CUS; (iv) Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2019 (368) E.L.T. 854 (Bom.); (v) Bhagwandas S. Tolani Vs.B.C. Aggarwal & Ors., 1983 (12) E.L.T. 44 (Bom.); (vi) Lanvin Synthetics Private Ltd. Vs.Union of India, 2015 (322) E.L.T. 429 (Bom.); (vii) The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of CGST & CX, delivered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble goods or with respect to levy duties of excise on such goods. 16. It is submitted by the learned counsel that issue involved in the subject show cause notices in the writ petition are regarding nonpayment of service tax on freight difference. The said show cause notices had been initially transferred to call book in the light of appeal filed by department in this Court against the order of CESTAT dated 30th September 2015 in case of M/s. Greenwich Meridian Logistics (I) Pvt. Ltd. The appeal filed by the department was dismissed by this Court. The department filed appeal before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on the grounds of delay vide order dated 1st April 2019. The show cause notices however, were kept in call book in the light of similar issue where department had filed appeal in this Court against the order of CESTAT dated 27th July 2016 in respect of M/s. Phoenix International Freight Services Pvt. Ltd. The said departmental appeal is still pending before this Court. 17. Mr.Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner in his rejoinder arguments submits that each and every stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit-in-reply is contrary to the principles of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med about the transfer of file relating to the show cause notices in question to call book prior to the date of the petitioner's letter asking for closure report. 24. This Court in case of Parle International Ltd. (supra) after considering the identical facts and after adverting to the judgment in cases of Bhagwandas S. Tolani (supra), Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) held that that a showcause notice issued a decade back should not be allowed to be adjudicated upon by the revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings. Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. It is held that keeping the show-cause notice in the dormant list or the call book, such a plea cannot be allowed or condoned by the writ court to justify inordinate delay at the hands of the revenue. This Court was accordingly pleased to quash and set aside the show cause notices which were pending quite some time. 25. In case of Sushitex Exports India Ltd. (supra), Division Bench of this Court was pleased to quash and set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the respondents in support of the submission that writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the remedy in terms of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1944 is concerned, in our view, the said judgment would not advance the case of the respondents. 29. In our view, since the respondents were totally responsible for gross delay in adjudicating the show cause notices issued by the respondents causing prejudice and hardship to the petitioner and have transferred the show cause notices to call book and kept in abeyance without communication to the petitioner for more than 7 to 11 years, the respondents cannot be allowed to raise alternate remedy at this stage. Be that as it may, no order has been passed by the respondents on the said show cause notices. The question of filing any appeal by the petitioner therefore did not arise. 30. In so far as the judgment of this Court in case of Sona Processors (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, in our view, the said judgment would not advance the case of the respondents and is clearly distinguishable. In the said judgment, this Court had considered the facts where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
